Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

TRADE AND NAVIGATION

Accounts ordered,
relating to Trade and Navigation of the United Kingdom for each month during the year 1960."—[Mr. Maudling.]

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE

Aden

Mr. de Freitas: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he will make a further statement on conditions in Aden.

Mr. Lipton: asked the Secretary of State for Air what further investigation he has made into conditions of Service men and their families in Aden.

Mr. Mason: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he will make available the reports of the Royal Air Force officers, Lord Tedder, and the Under-Secretary of State for Air, who have recently visited Aden to inspect conditions of Royal Air Force personnel and have reported to him on return.

The Secretary of State for Air (Mr. George Ward): I told the House in December that we intended to raise the minimum standard of approved family accommodation, and this has been done. There are at present 31 families whose accommodation does not comply with the new standards. These families are moving into better accommodation and all will be re-housed before the hot weather begins. As a first step, about 1,000 married men were asked whether they wished to bring their families home. Only one has applied for immediate repatriation.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State returned yesterday from a visit of inspection to Aden and he assures me that everything possible is being done to complete the very large R.A.F. building programme quickly. It would be contrary to normal practice for me to publish the reports I have had on housing in Aden.

Mr. de Freitas: Since it is clear that the Air Force fell down badly in the past in preparing for the changes in Aden, can the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that the Air Council and he personally will keep an eye on what is happening in Aden and will follow up to see that all these improvements are carried out in time for the hot weather, which is now only a couple of months away?

Mr. Ward: I find it difficult to understand how the hon. Gentleman arrives at his first conclusion in view of the fact that only one family has applied for immediate repatriation, but certainly we will keep an eye on these matters.

Mr. Lipton: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that until suitable accommodation is available for them no more women and children will be allowed to go to Aden? Is he aware that the only happy people I saw in Aden in September were the National Service men who were due to be released in the next week or two?

Mr. Ward: I have already said that married families will be allowed to go to Aden only into accommodation up to the new standards.

Mr. Mason: Why cannot we have some knowledge about the official reports which have been received? Three official deputations from the Air Ministry have been to Aden. Surely we could have some idea of their conclusions and what they found. Also, will the right hon. Gentleman consider making Aden a twelve-month unaccompanied tour until the whole of the building programme has been completed? How long will it take to settle many of these family problems?

Mr. Ward: In answer to the second part of the hon. Member's supplementary question, I would point out that there is no need to do this. Provided


we ensure that families are living in accommodation which is up to the new accepted standards, they are quite happy. in answer to the hon. Member's first point, there is a serious danger that people inspecting matters of this kind, either officially or unofficially, may give less frank and therefore less valuable reports if they feel that there is a possibility that their reports will be published. I think that it is much better and more valuable that we should not do this.

Mr. de Freitas: Will the Secretary of State get this clear? The fact that only one family or one man wants to come home is no evidence about conditions In the past. The right hon. Gentleman has given an undertaking that the accommodation will be improved rapidly, and that no doubt has influenced this decision. The point that most of us are worried about is this. In view of the fact that the Air Force fell down so badly in the past, will he personally see that they do not fall down again in the future?

Mr. Ward: I will personally see that the new standards are maintained.

Mr. Currie: asked the Secretary of State for Air the number of the families of serving Royal Air Force personnel in the Aden Protectorate who were occupying hirings in Aden, in the months of September and December, 1959, respectively.

Mr. Ward: Two hundred and sixty-three Royal Air Force personnel were occupying official hirings in Aden in September, and 293 in December.

Mr. Currie: While welcoming my right hon. Friend's earlier statement about the number of families who are now to be accommodated in accommodation up to the approved standard and while disagreeing entirely with the observations made by the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas) that the Air Force has fallen down badly in Aden, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether it is the policy of the Air Force to replace hirings by married quarters in the Aden Colony?

Mr. Ward: There will always be hirings in addition to married quarters. In addition to our programme of married

quarters, we hope to acquire another 300 hirings in the next six months and a further 200 in the six months after that.

Mr. Currie: asked the Secretary of State for Air the number of married quarters now under construction in the Aden Protectorate; and when it is expected that such married quarters will be ready for occupation.

Mr. Ward: A contract has just been placed for another 156 quarters, which should be ready in twelve months' time.

Mr. Currie: Is my right hon. Friend aware that one of the great problems of service in the Aden Colony is the deprivation that the airmen undergo of feminine society? Can he say whether it is the policy of the Air Ministry, where possible, to post married airmen and married officers to the Aden Colony and, where that is not possible, to provide some feminine society for those airmen who have to serve there for a number of years?

Mr. Ward: The reason why people are posted to Aden is partly because they are due for an overseas tour, partly because they happen to be expert in the proper trade and partly because of rank and seniority.

Mr. Currie: asked the Secretary of State for Air the number of Royal Air Force personnel in the Aden Protectorate who are now accommodated in sleeping quarters which have no system of air conditioning.

Mr. Ward: About 4,500. All new married and single quarters in Aden will be air-conditioned.

Mr. Mason: Is the Minister aware that if a twelve months' tour were introduced in Aden, he would immediately stop the exploitation by the Arabs of these other hirings, that we should immediately stop over-crowding in schools, because many of the children are not able to get accommodation in the schools, and that we should stop the problem of the exploitation of the families also?

Mr. Ward: I have already explained patiently to the hon. Member why it is not practicable to make Aden a twelve months' unaccompanied station.

Cyprus

Mr. de Freitas: asked the Secretary of State for Air what Royal Air Force stations in Cyprus will be retained by the Royal Air Force after the transfer of power next month.

Mr. Ward: Negotiations are still in progress to put into treaty form the conclusions of last year's London Conference on Cyprus. I am not yet in a position to make a statement.

Mr. de Freitas: Will the Secretary of State assure us that the non-military Departments will not claim more land than the Service Departments, and his own Department particularly, believe to be militarily necessary?

Mr. Ward: As I have said, the whole object of the present negotiations is to translate the conclusion of last year's conference into treaty terms.

Mr. A. M. Wraight

Mr. de Freitas: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he will make a statement on the case of Flying Officer Anthony Maynard Wraight who recently returned from Russia.

Lieut.-Colonel Cordeaux: asked the Secretary of State for Air (1) why Mr. Anthony Maynard Wraight was discharged from the Royal Air Force for misconduct, thus rendering him immune from the serious charges under the Air Force Act to which his actions rendered him liable;
(2) what action was taken to prevent Mr. Anthony Maynard Wraight deserting from the Royal Air Force and seeking political asylum in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics within a week of receiving a warning from Royal Air Force security officers that he would probably be charged with an offence under the Air Force Act resulting from his contacts with the Soviet authorities in Great Britain.

Mr. Mason: asked the Secretary of State for Air the result of the recent official interrogations of Flying Officer Wraight; why he was given permission to leave his Royal Air Force station, thus eluding security officers and escaping to Russia; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Ward: On 6th December, 1956, Flying Officer Wraight was reported

absent without leave. Inquiries showed that he had flown to Berlin on 3rd December. He had previously been questioned about being in contact with a representative of the Soviet Film Agency attached to the Russian Embassy in London, but there was no evidence of any offence that would have justified restricting his movements.
In January, 1959, Wraight was removed from the Royal Air Force for misconduct, with effect from 3rd December, 1956. This was in accordance with long-standing practice, which I have since altered.
He returned to the United Kingdom on 15th December, 1959, and was interviewed by the civil authorities. Officers of my Department were present part of the time, but since Wraight is no longer a member of the Royal Air Force the result of the interviews is not a matter for me.

Mr. de Freitas: Many Members are puzzled by this case. Why was this man able to go and why, when he comes back, does nothing more happen than that he publishes his memoirs in the Sunday papers? Surely, there is something else to be said.

Mr. Ward: In December, 1956, we could not have prevented his leaving the station except by putting him under arrest. There was no evidence at that time that he had committed any offence grave enough to justify such action.

Lieut.-Colonel Cordeaux: Will not my right hon. Friend agree that it is an astounding statement to say that there was no reason for stopping this man leaving the country? Is it not a fact that when he was interviewed on 1st December by the security officers of the Royal Air Force, he was informed that charges would be brought against him? That was the statement he made in the newspapers. Does my right hon. Friend also recall that this disgraceful affair happened nearly a year after the very similar episode of Burgess and Maclean, which suggests that those responsible for our security policy learnt absolutely nothing in the intervening time?

Mr. Ward: No, Sir. Wraight was never at any time told that he would even probably be charged with an offence under the Air Force Act.

Mr. Mason: Does the Secretary of State agree that the Air Ministry have made absolute fools of themselves in this matter? A flying officer, a person of no mean rank, has ten meetings with the Soviet Consulate, is interviewed by Air Ministry security officers, escapes freely and goes to Russia for three years. Then, the cheek of it all is that the British taxpayer has to pay for his return to this country and then, after interrogation, we let him off quite easily. What has been the object of the exercise in bringing him back to this country?

Mr. Ward: His original explanation of having talks with the film unit attached to the Russian Embassy was that he had always been extremely interested in films. In fact, he had written a thesis on the subject when he was still at Cranwell. It looked as though he would have to leave the Service anyway for medical reasons and there was no reason to disbelieve his story that his interest in film-making had led him to have these talks with the Russians.

Mr. Mason: His interest in the screen has obviously blinded the Air Ministry. This is a lame and poor statement. It is not surprising that the British public at least expresses concern that we allow these people to escape to Russia and then we ourselves foot the bill to bring them back and then allow them to go free.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: Are we footing the bill?

Mr. Ward: The Air Ministry certainly is not.

Mr. de Freitas: How much pay did the flying officer receive for his time in Russia?

Mr. Ward: He was removed from the Royal Air Force with effect from the day he left this country and he received no pay.

Mr. Mason: In view of the very unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's replies. I give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

Ceremonial Unit

Mr. Boyden: asked the Secretary of State for Air if he will consider abolishing the Royal Air Force

ceremonial unit, consisting of two officers, six non-commissioned officers and 125 aircraftmen, and costing £64,000 per annum, and utilising other serving airmen for such ceremonial duties as are necessary.

Mr. Ward: No, Sir. This unit helps us to met efficiently and economically the frequent need for Royal Air Force ceremonial detachments.

Mr. Boyden: In view of the high cost of this unit, will my right hon. Friend look particularly at the duties, occasions and number of men employed with a view to cutting the cost very considerably?

Mr. Ward: During 1959 the unit made over 100 appearances. The maintenance of this unit is much the most economic method in man-hours, and therefore ultimately in money, of meeting our commitments.

Oral Answers to Questions — METEOROLOGICAL OFFICE

Winds (Beaufort Scale)

Mr. Gresham Cooke: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether the Beaufort wind scale is used in descriptive matter issued by the Meteorological Office with weather maps; at what height the wind speed is taken; and at what miles-per-hour of wind speed the word "gale" is first used in such matter.

Mr. Ward: We use the Beaufort scale in issuing information to seamen. Our wind measurements are related to a height of 10 metres above flat ground. The term "gale" is used if the wind is blowing at from 39–46 miles an hour, which corresponds to force 8 on the Beaufort scale.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the word "gale" is used very loosely indeed in Press forecasts, and sometimes in forecasts on television, when what is meant is a nice fresh breeze of about 20 m.p.h.? Will he draw the attention of the Meteorological Office to the matter for accuracy in the use of this word?

Mr. Ward: If the Meteorological Office has misled the public in any way, I shall certainly look into it, but my


information is that the Beaufort scale is used only in shipping forecasts and that the terms are well understood by those concerned with shipping.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROADS

South-West (Motorway)

Captain Pilkington: asked the Minister of Transport when it is proposed to build a motorway to the South-West.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Ernest Marples): Work has already started on the first section of the London-South Wales Motorway and will start this spring on the first section of the Birmingham-Bristol motorway. This will be completed as quickly as resources permit and the roads from Bristol to Exeter will be extended in due course.

Captain Pilkington: Can my right hon. Friend make any statement about the building of a road further to the South-West than that, leading to the South-West which is badly in need of a better road?

Mr. Marples: A motorway is proposed from London to Kempshott on the A.30, west of Basingstoke. This is a six to twenty-year development proposal in the Middlesex, Surrey and Hampshire county development plans, and preliminary investigations are being made in order to publish a draft scheme under the Highways Act, 1959.

Mr. Dudley Williams: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that there is not much point in improving road facilities between Bristol and Exeter unless at the same time steps are taken to reduce traffic jams which always develop in the by-pass round Exeter? Is my right hon. Friend aware that one way of doing this is by developing the inner by-pass in the city itself?

Mr. Marples: The question of urban congestion is constantly in my mind.

Accidents

Captain Pilkington: asked the Minister of Transport whether, in order to impress on motorists and pedestrians the errors which most frequently cause road deaths, he will publish with the monthly statements of accidents the

approximate percentages of what he considers were the main errors causing these tragedies.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. John Hay): I have arranged for summaries of the tables analysing the actions of persons concerned in fatal and serious road accidents to be prepared each month and the main points incorporated in the monthly Press statement.

London-Yorkshire Motorway

Mr. A. Roberts: asked the Minister of Transport (1) if he will consult with the local authorities of Yorkshire concerning the route of the London-Yorkshire motorway through the County of Yorkshire;
(2) if he will now make a further statement on the completion of the London-Yorkshire motorway.

Mr. Wade: asked the Minister of Transport (1) what progress he has to report on the construction of the London to Yorkshire motorway from Crick to the West Riding of Yorkshire;
(2) what progress he has to report on the extension of the London to Yorkshire motorway in the West Riding of Yorkshire towards Sheffield and Leeds.

Mr. Hay: The draft scheme showing the proposed route of the motorway from Crick to the Doncaster by-pass was published on 8th January. The local authorities affected have already been consulted, in accordance with normal practice. Until the period of three months allowed for objections has ended I cannot forecast future progress on the remaining statutory processes.
Proposals made by the West Riding County Council for the further extension of this motorway to Sheffield and Leeds are being examined. A draft scheme showing the route of this extension will be published as soon as possible.

Mr. Roberts: May we have an assurance from the Minister that the extension of the London-Yorkshire motorway will proceed as fast as possible?

Mr. Hay: yes, indeed. We are pressing on as fast as the statutory procedure laid down by Parliament will allow us.

Mr. Wade: When does the hon. Gentleman expect the extension as far


as the Doncaster by-pass to be completed? Secondly, in view of the traffic congestion in the West Riding, can he give any assurance that the extension through the West Riding towards Leeds will be completed as soon as possible after the extension to the Doncaster by-pass?

Mr. Hay: I cannot at this stage forecast exactly when we shall complete the section of the road to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but, as I said earlier, we are pressing on with this as quickly as we possibly can.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Is this extension of the motorway to have three lanes in either direction, because from the point of view of safety and traffic flow it is very important that the three lanes of the London-Birmingham section should be extended up to Yorkshire?

Mr. Hay: Yes, I think it is. I would not like to give a categorical answer without notice, but I think that in this case it is three.

Mr. Mellish: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that what is really needed today is a national road plan so that hon. Members from constituencies all over the country can be satisfied that some effort will be made to carry out the necessary road improvements? Is he aware that one of the problems is that when a labour force is built up to build a road it is disbanded afterwards and that it takes a long time to build up the labour force again? May we have some assurance about the future as a whole?

Mr. Hay: What we are trying to do is to make up for many years' neglect of the roads of this country, particularly in the years between 1945 and 1951. We are getting on as quickly as Parliament will allow and as quickly as funds will permit.

Mr. Paget: Can the hon. Gentleman give us any indication of the cost of dispersing the organisation and machinery and the manpower at Crick because his Ministry had been so dilatory that it had not got any further plans?

Mr. Hay: I cannot without notice give any estimate of the cost to which the hon. and learned Gentleman refers.

As to the second part of his supplementary question, all this was debated very fully in this House in November, and I think it was pretty clear to any unbiassed person that any delay there had been was not due to my right hon. Friend's Ministry or to my right hon. Friend's predecessor.

St. Marylebone and Westminster

Sir W. Wakefield: asked the Minister of Transport what additional off-street parking facilities are to be provided in St. Marylebone and Westminster during the next two years; and by what dates it is estimated that they will be available for use.

Mr. Marples: The provision of extra off-street parking facilities in this area is a matter for the local authorities and private enterprise. I know of several projects in various stages of progress involving a total provision of space for over 3,000 cars. I can make no certain forecast of how much will be completed in the next two years but expect that there will be at least 700 extra car spaces.

Sir W. Wakefield: Does the Minister agree that it is essential that adequate off-street parking facilities should be made available for the public at the same time as meters are installed? Will he take steps to increase the speed at which off-street parking facilities are provided by local authorities?

Mr. Marples: I shall do my best. I am to have consultations with the local authorities very shortly, and I shall impress on them the urgency of having off-street car parking.

Mr. Manuel: Would the right hon. Gentleman tell us how he will find time for all these considerations, reviews and examinations? Will he not come to some decision and clear his mind? He will not then lose patience with the Scots when they visit him with delegations.

Mr. Marples: I shall never lose my patience with the Scots, whose conduct is such that they would never try anybody. Somehow or other we will find the time for all these tasks, and I hope that I shall be able to do my best with some of the very complex issues with which we are faced. It is no use making


a speedy decision if it is a wrong one. The main thing is that adequate consideration should take place.

Sir W. Wakefield: asked the Minister of Transport the estimated date for the completion of the installation of parking meters for the whole of the district north of Oxford Street in the Borough of St. Marylebone.

Mr. Marples: The St. Marylebone Metropolitan Borough Council has applied for an Order to extend its present parking meter scheme in the southwest corner of the Borough eastwards along the whole length of the north side of Oxford Street to the Borough boundary with St. Pancras; the northern boundary of the new zone would be New Cavendish Street. These proposals, together with objections duly made, will shortly be referred to the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee. Until the Committee has reported I clearly cannot say when this area will be included in a parking-meter scheme.

Sir W. Wakefield: Are there other steps which can be taken to speed up the installation of meters in this area rather than the long and protracted methods now in existence?

Mr. Marples: Not without new legislation. We are going as fast as we can under the statutory powers that this House gave the Ministry of Transport.

Sir W. Wakefield: asked the Minister of Transport what steps he is taking to ensure better utilisation of excessively wide pavements as lay-bys for omnibus stops, taxi waiting places and the loading and unloading of vehicles in the borough of St. Marylebone and in the City of Westminister.

Mr. Marples: I cannot make grants to Metropolitan Boroughs for minor improvement proposals of this kind. They are therefore entirely a matter for the councils concerned.

Sir W. Wakefield: May I ask the Minister what steps he proposes to take to provide this desirable assistance for the free flow of traffic and to prevent congestion taking place? As he knows, there is an excellent example of this in Great George Street, which is just round the corner from here. Traffic there is frequently impeded by cars stopping to

pick up and set down passengers. Cannot something be done to speed up the whole matter?

Mr. Marples: Plans are now being considered for narrowing the pavement and increasing the width of the road in Great George Street.

Major Roads (White Lines)

Mr. A. Roberts: asked the Minister of Transport when he proposes to carry out experimental tests on major roads with the sparkling white line.

Mr. Marples: Tests have been made and are being carried out with these glass-beaded lines.

Mr. Roberts: If these experiments are not successful, will the use of continuous cats' eyes continue? The public are concerned about cats' eyes being removed.

Mr. Marples: The Road Research Laboratory is carrying out tests both on its premises and on the roads concerned. I think that we ought to wait until we see the results of those tests before going to the second stage.

Mr. Roberts: May we have an assurance that the use of cats' eyes will be continued if these experiments are not successful?

Mr. Marples: Certainly. Some system has to be adopted to show where these white lines are. We shall adopt the most effective method.

Mr. Mason: Will the Minister specify what he means by glass-beaded lines?

Mr. Marples: It is a substance called ballotini which is painted on the white lines and incorporates very small glass beads.

Derby (Road Accidents)

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will given the figures of the number of people killed and seriously injured on the roads of the County Borough of Derby during the year 1959.

Mr. Hay: I am sorry to say that 15 people were killed and 228 seriously injured.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Does the Minister realise that this large increase over the


figures for 1958 has taken place despite the great efforts made by a very able chief constable and by an all-party road safety committee? Will he recognise that new and urgent nation-wide measures are required to deal with this frightful increase in road accidents?

Mr. Hay: We recognise both those points.

Mr. Mellish: Does the Parliamentary Secretary realise that his Minister said that he would not make any comment on the Royal Commission which we are to debate on Friday? It is likely that on Friday we shall not reach this subject. May we have a statement now that he is prepared to do something dramatic to see if we can overcome some of these problems?

Mr. Hay: I think that the hon. Gentleman is far too pessimistic about Friday.

Road Intersection, Southampton (Traffic Lights)

Mr. J. Howard: asked the Minister of Transport if he will now accede to the request for the installation of traffic lights at the intersection of Tebourba Way and Oakley Road, Southampton, in view of the fact that another fatal accident has recently occurred.

Mr. Hay: Yes, Sir. The borough engineer has recently been invited to prepare a detailed installation plan.

Mr. Howard: Is my hon. Friend aware that his reply will give great satisfaction to the people who live on the fringe of these two roads?

Mr. Hay: I am glad to hear that. It has been a trouble spot for some years.

Road Casualties (Christmas)

Mr. Russell: asked the Minister of Transport if he will publish an analysis of the causes of the unusually heavy road casualties at Christmas.

Mr. Hay: I am arranging for a summary analysis of the Christmas fatalities to be published today and for copies to be placed in the Library.

Mr. Russell: Would my hon. Friend say whether any one cause, such as drunkenness, played a major part in the increase?

Mr. Hay: I think that my hon. Friend had better study the statement in the Library. The only thing I will say is that the police put forward drink as being the cause of only four of the accidents. It is not known how many more accidents were contributed to by drink because these details are reported only in relation to drivers and cyclists and only in cases where the facts are such that the police can take action on them.

Road, Dagenham (Widening)

Mr. Parker: asked the Minister of Transport what progress has been made with the widening of Ripple Road, between Lodge Avenue, Barking, and Chequers Lane, Dagenham.

Mr. Hay: The preparation of this scheme is nearly complete but, until agreement over a proposed extension has been reached with the frontagers affected, we cannot say when work will start.

Alcohol and Road Accidents

Mr. Bence: asked the Minister of Transport what steps he now proposes to take to curb the taking of alcoholic drinks by persons in charge of motor vehicles, in consequence of the increase in road accidents over the Christmas period.

Mr. Wade: asked the Minister of Transport what information he has gained from his visit to the United States of America as to the effect of the consumption of alcohol on the number of road accidents and the methods adopted to lessen such accidents; to what extent he proposes to introduce similar methods into this country; and what other steps he proposes to take to prevent road accidents of which the consumption of alcohol by drivers is a contributory cause.

Mr. Marples: In addition to what I learnt in the United States I have now received from the Medical Research Council a summary of selected investigations concerning alcohol and road accidents. I also have the report published by the British Medical Association on the relation of alcohol to road accidents. I am most grateful to both these bodies for the valuable work they have


done on this subject, and I am at present studying the extensive information available in these reports.

Mr. Bence: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is aware that road casualties at the present time are very serious indeed. Does he know that after 11 o'clock at night in a certain area on New Year's Eve it was very dangerous to be on the road whether in a car when certain pedestrians were on the road, or as a pedestrian when there were certain cars on the road? In view of what has been said, will the right hon. Gentleman take immediate steps to stop the drinking of alcohol by drivers in charge of motor vehicles?

Mr. Marples: It is obvious that the first thing to do is to make a scientific assessment why the deaths were caused. We have not got the figures for New Year's Eve, to which the hon. Member refers, but we have them for Christmas Eve, when 66 people were killed as against 33 the previous Christmas Eve, and 14 as the normal daily average. They are very serious figures, and I have asked the Road Research Laboratory to investigate every one of the 66 cases in order to obtain positive proof why they happened. When that information is received I shall proceed on a surer foundation.

Mr. Wade: In studying this problem and considering whether any new measures are necessary, will the Minister keep in mind the fact that the consumption of a comparatively small amount of alcohol may affect the ability of a driver to make a quick decision, which is very necessary on the roads today and which might make all the difference between an accident taking place and an accident being avoided?

Mr. Marples: That is included in the B.M.A. report and, like all matters in that report, it will be considered when we have an analysis of the 66 deaths.

Mr. Page: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that a great proportion of accidents are caused by an error of judgment, and that it has been shown by the Drew report and the B.M.A. report that the taking of alcohol even in small quantities impairs judgment? Would it not be possible to apply some limitation to the drinking of alcohol by a stricter enforcement of the law, either by a test or in some other way?

Mr. Marples: All these points will be borne in mind. One of the most impressive things I found in my visit to America concerned Chicago, where, with half a million cars in 1948, there were 500 deaths and then, after they had introduced certain remedial measures, in 1959, when there were a million cars, there were only 300 deaths. In other words, there were twice the number of cars and little more than half the deaths. I do not suggest that 300 deaths are nothing, but this was a step in the right direction.

Mr. G. Thomas: In the meantime, will the Minister ask the B.B.C. and the Independent Television Authority to give less advertisement to liquor? Does he appreciate that if only one life is needlessly lost through somebody being so selfish that he must have another drink, there will be no sympathy from the public at large, and that the Minister cannot take too strong an action for the public?

Mr. Marples: There is nothing wrong in liquor by itself. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. In this House we are used to controversial observations.

Mr. Marples: It depends on the nature of the liquor and whether or not the person is driving.

Mr. Nabarro: Could not we have this breath test before the 10 o'clock Division one night?

Mr. Speaker: That question is not properly directed to the Minister of Transport.

Mr. Rankin: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that it depends not only on the nature of the liquor but on the day when it is taken? Is he aware that at the beginning of this year a magistrate—one of a body upon whom the Minister depends for carrying out the law—excused three drivers for offences they had committed because they occurred on Hogmanay?

Mr. Marples: I must be very careful about making any criticism of the Scottish nation.

Dr. Summerskill: When will the Minister make a statement on the British Medical Association's recommendations on this subject?

Mr. Marples: I would ask the right hon. Lady to put down a Question on that subject. I received the report only last week

Oral Answers to Questions — RAILWAYS

Timetables

Captain Pilkington: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will give a general direction to the British Transport Commission to revise railway timetables so that the scheduled time of train arrival shall conform more frequently with the actual time of arrival.

Mr. Marples: No, Sir. This is a matter of management for which the British Transport Commission is responsible.

Captain Pilkington: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the present deplorable unpunctuality on many of our railways gives them a very bad name in this country and, perhaps more important, gives this country a very bad name among overseas visitors?

Mr. Marples: Some unpunctuality is caused by the modernisation programme which is bringing great difficulties to the railways. If my hon. and gallant Friend has any case in mind, perhaps he would write direct to the chairman of the British Transport Commission or write to me, but all I can do is to forward his letter to the chairman.

Electrified Railway Lines (Overhead Cables)

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: asked the Minister of Transport how many persons have been killed during the past three years as a result of electrocution due to too close proximity to overhead cables on electrified railway lines; and whether he is satisfied that adequate steps are taken at the present time to put up sufficient warning notices indicating that it is dangerous to get within nine feet of such cables.

Mr. Marples: Five people were killed during the last three years. As regards the second part of the Question, I am satisfied that it is the policy of the Commission to erect adequate warning notices both to the public and to the railway staff where it is necessary.

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a boy was killed in my constituency, at Alderley Edge sidings, by one of these cables carrying 25,000 volts? Is he further aware that the Manchester coroner considered that British Railways had been lax in not putting up proper notices in this area? Will my right hon. Friend ensure that all such notices are put up giving adequate warning in the future?

Mr. Marples: That really was a very sad case of a child being killed but, of course, it would not have taken place if the child had not been trespassing, because he actually climbed a vehicle and got much too near the wire. I will look into the question of notices. The point is to try to stop children trespassing on the lines, which is very dangerous indeed. My hon. and gallant Friend may like to know that talks are to be given to all schools on this subject.

Victoria Line Tube

Mr. Fletcher: asked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the recommendations of the London Travel Committee for the construction of a new tube from Victoria to north-east London, he will not approve this project and announce a date for the work to be commenced.

Mr. Redhead: asked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the Report of the London Travel Committee, he will now give approval for the construction of the Victoria Line and take all necessary steps to expedite the work.

Mr. J. Harvey: asked the Minister of Transport whether he has noted the Report of the London Travel Committee recommending the construction of the Victoria Line; what action he proposes to take; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Lipton: asked the Minister of Transport if he will now authorise the building of the new tube from Victoria, in view of the Report of the London Travel Committee.

Mr. Albu: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will make a statement on the Report by the London Travel Committee on the Victoria Line.

Mr. Marples: I hope to be able to make a statement soon.

Mr. Fletcher: I am sure everybody in the House hopes that the Minister will be able very soon to announce that he is to authorise the commencement of this new tube. He and his predecessor hitherto have delayed the answer and have said, "We are awaiting the recommendation of this Committee", which has now authoritatively pronounced in favour of it. Will he bear in mind that this is the only solution of the appalling congestion on the roads in north-east London?

Mr. Marples: The Report was published just before Christmas. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that it is being studied very earnestly.

Mr. Redhead: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, in his further consideration of this matter, to take due account of the urgency which has been stressed about it not only by the British Transport Commission but by all the local authorities which are concerned in the area which will be served and now by his own independent Committee, the London Travel Committee? Will he be good enough to give an assurance of the utmost expedititon in making an early statement?

Mr. Marples: I shall really try to come to a decision as quickly as possible. All the considerations which have been put forward by all the local authorities and the various bodies mentioned will be taken into account.

Mr. Harvey: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that hundreds of thousands of people in north-east London are waiting for this decision and are hoping that it will be a favourable one, and also will he bear in mind that the construction of this line will not only add enormously to the travel facilities in the areas it is intended to serve but should help to make traffic much easier on certain other lines, such as the Central Line, which is already grossly overcrowded?

Mr. Marples: Yes, I will certainly bear that in mind. I agree that the Central Line is now greatly overcrowded. All these questions will be taken into consideration. I am bound to say that unless this country has an efficient public transport system it is clear that it will be overwhelmed by the number of cars.

Mr. Lipton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he keeps on telling us that something must be done and that an announcement will be made soon, but that in the meantime nothing is done and that we still do not know what is to happen about the future of London traffic, to the easement of which this tube may make a very necessary and desirable contribution? Will he really concentrate on the matter of this tube mentioned in the Question, and give us an undertaking that at least we shall know something about it before his effigy appears at Madame Tussaud's?

Mr. Marples: All I can say is that the Report was published less than a month ago, and I think that the hon. Gentleman is being unreasonable if he expects a decision in less time than that.

Mr. Albu: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is the third Report to come to exactly the same conclusion? Is he now saying that in his Department they have no plans for dealing with a situation which has been foreseen for so long?

Mr. Marples: Consideration is taking place of the Report which has recently been published.

Mr. Mellish: On the assumption that when this tube is approved it will be built and operated by the British Transport Commission, may we have an assurance that when the right hon. Gentleman makes his statement he will make it quite clear that the financial burden of this necessary tube will not be of such a character as to make the Commission's finances even worse than they are at the moment?

Mr. Marples: One of the difficulties about the tube, which will be a great boon, is that it is expected to make a heavy annual loss. This is something which has to be taken into account.

Automatic Train Control

Mr. Thorpe: asked the Minister of Transport how many main lines on British Railways are equipped with automatic train control; and how many lines have still to be so equipped.

Mr. Marples: All the main lines in the Western Region of British Railways and those from King's Cross to Darlington,


Euston to Rugby, and Edinburgh to Glasgow are equipped with the automatic warning system of train control.
All the remaining main lines of British Railways are to be so equipped.

Mr. Thorpe: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that this is a highly unsatisfactory state of affairs, bearing in mind that the Western Region has been so equipped for the past fifty years, and that as far back as 1920 a committee set up by the then Government recommended that all lines should be so equipped? Is the Minister aware that at the time of the Lewisham disaster the British Transport Commission said that it would accelerate automatic train control? Is he also aware that people travelling on this line—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."]—are subject to the same dangers as they were on the night of the Lewisham disaster? Will the right hon Gentleman try to accelerate progress?

Mr. Marples: Dense traffic operates at Lewisham but, although it is dense, generally speaking it is not very fast. The first job is to equip the main lines where the speed of the trains is fast. The equipping of the remaining main lines will take time in view of the magnitude of the task. It is expected to be completed by 1972, but a firm programme of priorities has been drawn up until the end of 1962, by which time a further 490 route miles should be completed.

Fenchurch Street-Tilbury-Southend Line (Electrification)

Mr. Parker: asked the Minister of Transport what progress has been made with the electrification of the Fen-church Street-Tilbury-Southend line under the capital development modernisation plan.

Mr. Hay: The British Transport Commission has informed us that the main scheme is likely to be completed in 1961. The installation of the overhead and the lineside electrical equipment is proceeding and the complete resignalling of the line has begun. The two flyovers and the flyunder at Barking were completed in 1959 and the reconstruction of the station buildings there has been started. The new marshalling

yard at Ripple Lane, which has already been brought partly into use, will be completed this year.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

Eastern London (Traffic Congestion)

Mr. Channon: asked the Minister of Transport what proposals he has to shorten the delays to travellers by car to the east coast caused by traffic congestion in eastern London.

Mr. Marples: Several schemes have been authorised or are being prepared to improve the flow of traffic on the eastern part of the North Circular Road and on the trunk roads to Great Yarmouth and Tilbury. Local highway authorities are carrying out certain schemes on classified roads with the help of Government grants, and I am considering others for the programme. With permission I will circulate a list in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
Of course, improvements can also be achieved by traffic regulation and they are receiving my close attention. A number of experiments are in progress.

Mr. Channon: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply and welcoming the improvements and the suggestions he has made, may I draw his attention to the fact that the East Coast has both some of the worst road difficulties, because the way out from London is so very bad, and also some of the worst railways? May I suggest that the East Coast should have a fair share of road improvements?

Mr. Marples: I can assure my hon. Friend that the East Coast is receiving its fair share and that if he asked the people in the West or the South-West they, too, would say that they think their areas are the worst off.

Mr. Manuel: And Scotland.

Following is the list:

North Circular Road, A.406
1. Reconstruction of Angel Road bridge, Edmonton, and provision of dual carriageways for¼ mile. Work will start at the beginning of February, 1960.
2. Widening to provide dual carriageways from Bowes Road to Great North Way for four miles. The scheme will be included in the programme as soon as possible.


3. Construction of dual carriageways for ½mile in a new alignment at Silver Street. The scheme will be included in the programme as soon as possible.

London-Tilbury Trunk Road, A.13
4 Widening of Ripple Road,Barking, to provide a second carriageway for 1¾ miles. The work is expected to start in summer, 1960.
5. Widening of New Road, Rainham, to provide a second carriageway for 1¼ miles. Work is expected to start in summer, 1960.

London-Great Yarmouth Trunk Road, A.12
6. Enlargement of Whalebone Lane roundabout and construction of two pedestrian subways are now in progress at a cost of £70,000.

Black wall Tunnel
7. The London County Council hope to complete work in summer, 1960, on the new northern approach, which will be carried below East India Dock Road by an underpass.
8. The London County Council hopes to start work on the duplication of the tunnel soon and to complete it in 1965. Essential preliminary work has already begun.

Dartford-Purfleet Tunnel
9. When completed in 1962 the tunnel is expected to attract a considerable amount of traffic from the river crossings in eastern London.

London-Norwich Road, A.11
10. Stratford High Street has been widened to provide dual carriageways, and the West Ham County Borough Council is arranging for the widening of the bridge over the railway.

Gardiner's Corner, A.11/A.124
11. The London County Council has been invited to submit for consideration a scheme to improve the intersection of Aldgate High Street, Commercial Street, Whitechapel Road, Commercial Road East and Leman Street.

Abnormal Loads (A.335 Road)

Mr. Mathew: asked the Minister of Transport why police-escorted, abnormal, indivisible loads going from Teignmouth to London are routed via the unsuitable, hilly and twisting road, A.335, and thence through the outskirts of Sidmouth town before joining the main A.30 road.

Mr. Hay: The reason is that there are two low bridges on A.30 between Exeter and Honiton, and these restrict the height of the loads which can be moved by that route.

Mr. Mathew: While thanking my hon. Friend for that Answer, may I ask whether he is aware that these approaches are also narrow and contribute to a very great congestion on the

A.30 during the summer months? In view of the increasing importance of the tourist industry in the summer months in that area, will my hon. Friend give the same priority to this tourist industry area as to other industrial areas?

Mr. Hay: I admire my hon. Friend's ingenuity.

Tower Bridge

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Transport what consideration has been given to the need to change the giving of priority to ships by the opening of Tower Bridge, in view of the increase in road transport in recent years and the traffic congestion that results from the opening of the bridge, particularly during peak road travel periods.

Mrs. Butler: asked the Minister of Transport, in view of the increasingly serious traffic hold-ups resulting from the frequent opening of Tower Bridge to allow ships to pass, what representations he has made, or proposes to make, to the appropriate authorities, designed to give greater consideration to road users than is now the case.

Mr. Ledger: asked the Minister of Transport, in view of the interference with the flow of traffic by the opening of the Tower Bridge to allow ships to pass, how often Tower Bridge was opened for this purpose since 1st January, 1959, up to the last convenient date.

Mr. Marples: Tower Bridge was opened, 2,057 times between 1st January and 31st December, 1959. My Department has held discussions with the authorities and interests concerned, and we are satisfied that they are aware that it is a grave problem and that they will do all they can to reduce interference to road traffic. I shall continue to explore various possible means of improving the situation which were raised in our discussions with the interests concerned, but the problem is not susceptible of any easy or quick solution.

Mr. Dodds: Why was not something done before I put the Question down? Is it not ludicrous that in 1960 the law governing the opening of the bridge is one which was introduced in 1885, the Corporation of London (Tower Bridge) Act? Is it not also clear from that law that any flipping little ship that wants


to get through and has a mast which is too tall has to have precedence over all the traffic and that, after 75 years, traffic for miles around is paralysed because the bridge is opened in this way? What is the use of the Minister going to America if he cannot settle a problem like that?

Mr. Marples: The hon. Member will no doubt be astonished to learn that action had been taken in some respects before even his weighty Question was put down. A great deal of action has been taken by the Port of London Authority, and because a law is old it is not necessarily a bad law. Discussions have taken place between the police, the London Transport Executive, the Road Haulage Association, British Road Services, the Corporation of London, and the Port of London Authority, and many suggestions have been made. Every single suggestion is now being examined closely and was being examined before the Question was put down.

Road Traffic Offences (Penalties)

Mr. Fletcher: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is satisfied that the existing legal penalties for serious road traffic offences are adequate; and, it view of the evidence in favour of heavier deterrent penalties, including disqualification in suitable cases, sent to him by the hon. Member for Islington, what steps he will take to secure an amendment of the law.

Mr. Marples: The whole range of penalties, including disqualification, for road traffic offences was reviewed by Parliament during the passage of the Road Traffic Act of 1956; for a number of offences the punishment was made more severe. In nearly all cases the penalties inflicted by the courts are well below the maxima, and I see no reason to suppose that an increase in those maxima would of itself increase their deterrent effect.

Mr. Fletcher: But does not the Minister agree that something must be done to stop this dreadful carnage on the roads? Cannot he do something to ensure that effect is given to the weighty recommendations of the Magistrates'

Association that the most salutary method would be severer penalties?

Mr. Marples: I quite agree with the hon. Gentleman that the slaughter on the roads is simply appalling; but the power to inflict the penalties is there, and the willingness to inflict them is a matter for the courts, the magistrates and juries. I hope that the hon. Gentleman's question will result in wider publicity being given to the recommendations which were made.

Mr. Page: Is there any consideration of greater use being made of compulsory disqualification in certain cases?

Mr. Marples: Nothing is excluded from the review now going on: nothing at all. I have tried a number of methods, and I have even tried the breathalyzer myself, but I can assure this House that something must be done to stop accidents on the roads.

Mr. Mellish: The right hon. Gentleman will know that on Friday we are, we hope, to debate the question of a Royal Commission on the whole question of accidents and so on. Will he now say in advance whether he favours such a commission? Has not the time come when some action should be taken by Parliament to ensure that severer action is taken against these offenders?

Mr. Marples: I can understand the hon. Gentleman's impatience, but if we are to have that debate on Friday, would it not be better that I should listen to the views of all Members before making a decision, rather than be dictatorial and announce it now?

Mr. Manuel: What about the Scottish delegation?

Second-hand Cars

Mr. Spriggs: asked the Minister of Transport (1) if he will introduce legislation to compel second-hand car dealers to make a declaration of a car's history to any potential customer, and to issue a certificate of roadworthiness in each instance;
(2) if he has studied the case, details of which have been sent to him by the hon. Member for St. Helens, of the sale of a car for normal use after it had been declared a total loss by an insurance


company; and what other evidence he has received regarding the extent to which such a practice obtains;
(3) if he will introduce legislation to prohibit the resale of cars for normal use after any such car has been declared a total loss by an insurance company.

Mr. Hay: My right hon. Friend has studied the case referred to in the second of these Questions, and has written to the hon. Member. On the main issue raised, we are not satisfied that further legislation on the lines suggested would materially strengthen the existing legal safeguards against the sale of defective vehicles.

Mr. Spriggs: What is the use of the Minister saying that something will have to be done about accidents on the roads of this country if, when he has an opportunity to do something about them, he refuses to do it? Secondly, is the Minister aware that the trade is in full support of what this Question asks for? May I take this opportunity to thank the Minister for his correspondence?

Mr. Hay: I understand the hon. Gentleman's feelings, but the advice we have is that it will be extremely difficult to carry into effect the sort of proposals he has in mind. It is already an offence for anyone to offer for sale a motor vehicle which does not comply with certain legal requirements, particularly about things like brakes, steering, tyres and lighting. The difficulty arises in proving the condition at the time of sale. The customer's best protection, which is also a protection of the public's road safety, is through having an expert examination of the vehicle, before buying.

Commercial Vehicles (Licences)

Mr. Darling: asked the Minister of Transport whether, in the interest of road safety, he will consider making stricter regulations governing the granting of licences for commercial road vehicles, and, in particular, withholding licences from operators who do not have adequate garages, or facilities for the proper maintenance of their vehicles.

Mr. Marples: No, Sir. I think the existing law meets the need.

Mr. Darling: Would the Minister agree that quite a number of accidents are caused by vehicles on the roads not being in a proper state of repair, and does not he think it wrong to give licences to operators who cannot keep their vehicles in a proper state of repair? Although the purpose behind this Question is not to put the small operator off the road, would the right hon. Gentleman consider making suggestions to those people for the collective organisation of facilities for repair where individually they cannot afford the facilities themselves?

Mr. Marples: It is not a question of facilities or of whether the vehicle is in repair or not. The Traffic Commissioners can withhold a licence, when applied for, if they think the applicant is not a fit person to hold a licence; and if his vehicle is not good, he is not a fit person. Also, during the currency of a licence for a public service vehicle, they can examine it and can suspend the licence. There is no doubt that the existing laws are sufficient, and a great deal of good is being done.

Mr. Bence: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the majority of road accidents are due not so much to the state of the vehicles but to the state of the people in charge of them, especially when they have taken alcohol?

Mr. Marples: To be honest, I am not sure that the analysis of why accidents occur is as comprehensive or as accurate as it should be. I would prefer not to answer that supplementary question until I have made sure, which 1 am trying hard to do.

Mr. Popplewell: The Minister said that the Traffic Commissioners can examine vehicles. What staff have they got to do this work? Do the Traffic Commissioners depend on spot checks which the police may make of a vehicle at any time? Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that sufficient inspection is taking place to keep unfit vehicles off the roads, because there are many of them on the roads at the moment?

Mr. Marples: I should like notice of that supplementary question. If the hon. Gentleman has evidence of any vehicles he thinks are not suitable, and will let me have it, I will look at it.

Driving Tests

Mr. Darling: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is satisfied that the declaration by an applicant for a driving licence that he can see a number plate 25 yards away is a sufficient guarantee that licences are not granted to persons with dangerously poor sight; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Hay: At the beginning of every driving test a candidate is asked by the examiner to read a number plate at a distance of 25 yards; if he cannot do so the test is cancelled. Drivers who subsequently seek renewal of their driving licences are responsible for the truth and accuracy of the statements they make on the application form, including the declaration referred to by the hon. Member. Licensing authorities have power under the Road Traffic Act, 1930, to revoke a driving licence if they become aware that a driver's eyesight does not reach the standard required by the Regulations.

Mr. Darling: Would the Joint Parliamentary Secretary agree that, when evidence is forthcoming, it is usually alter the accident and not before? Further, is he aware that a large percentage of drivers on the roads took out their licences before 1939, or in some cases 1933, and have never passed the test? Even if they have passed it, their eyesight deteriorates with the passage of time. Would the hon. Gentleman consult the ophthalmic surgeons in order to devise a suitable optical test, so that after a certain period all drivers can take a simple test to find out whether their eyesight is satisfactory?

Mr. Hay: We have looked at this difficult problem. The advice my right hon. Friend has at the moment is that, even in the case of those drivers who have a licence but who have never passed a driving test because they took out their original licence before the Act came into force, the requirement to complete the declaration on the application for renewal of the driving licence provides an adequate safeguard. However, our minds are not closed on this point, and if there were any concrete evidence that some change should be made for the general public advantage, we would look into it.

Mr. Osborne: Would my hon. Friend look at the suggestion made by certain

of his specialists that drivers over the age of 75 should have to undergo an eyesight test once a year to show that they are really fit to be in charge of a car?

Mr. Hay: I will look into it.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: asked the Minister of Transport when he expects the waiting period for a driving test to lessen so that Section 18 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, 1956, limiting the period of a provisional licence, can be brought into force.

Mr. Marples: I regret that I cannot at the moment forecast when Section 18 (1) is likely to be brought into force.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are a great number of drivers who have been fiddling along for many years with provisional licences and using the excuse that they cannot get a driving test? Some of them may have been driving with defective eyesight because they have not been tested. It is of great importance for road safety that this Section, which requires people to get licences within a year of receiving a provisional licence, should be brought into force.

Mr. Marples: I agree. It will be brought into force as soon as we can do it.

Canals

Mr. G. Wilson: asked the Minister of Transport if he will make a statement with regard to Her Majesty's Government's further policy in respect of canals, following the recommendations of the Bowes Committee on Inland Waterways, and Command Paper No. 676.

Mr. Marples: I am closely examining this matter and the complex issues involved but I am not yet able to make a statement.

Mr. Wilson: Would my right hon. Friend appreciate that the policy set out in Command Paper No. 676 deals with only a small part of the recommendations of the Bowes Committee, and will he do everything possible to speed up his decision on the remaining and major part of the recommendations?

Mr. Marples: I certainly will, but it would be easier to deal with this problem if we had more experience of the


practical possibilities of redevelopment which the Parham Committee was set up to consider.

Driving and Traffic Examiners

Mr. Gresham Cooke: asked ate Minister of Transport if the complement of driving examiners for Great Britain is now complete: and how many recruits are required.

Mr. Marples: Last year the complement of driving and traffic examiners was increased by 300. Seventy-one have still to be recruited. I hope there will be a full complement by the end of March.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: That would be satisfactory. Now that my right hon. Friend has returned from America reinvigorated, if that is possible, perhaps he will get a drive on to get the 71 examiners.

Mr. Marples: We will, and we hope that with the assistance of the Ministry of Labour it will be possible to provide the 71 examiners very shortly.

Oral Answers to Questions — SHIPPING

Nuclear Propulsion

Mr. Wall: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will now make a statement on the provision of a prototype nuclear-powered merchant ship.

Mr. Rankin: asked the Minister of Transport whether he has now decided to place an order for a nuclear ship.

Mr. Marples: The Government have accepted the recommendation of the Galbraith Committee that tenders should be invited from selected firms for two types of nuclear reactor with propelling machinery for installation in a tanker of 65,000 tons deadweight. These types are the boiling water reactor and the organic liquid moderated reactor.
Preparation of tenders is likely to take some months. When they have been received and considered the Government will decide whether an order should be placed for building a nuclear-powered ship. Its construction is likely to take some four or five years.

Mr. Wall: Does my right hon. Friend recall that about a year ago there was

an exhibition, attended by many hon. Members of the House, where eight different types of reactor were displayed? Is it not a fact that at that time the firms constructing at least the boiling water reactors were ready to start on this work? Why, then, such delay with the Galbraith Committee, and why should we still have to wait several months before an order can be placed? My right hon. Friend has shown enormous energy over telephones, Pink Zones, and so on, so could he address himself with similar energy to this problem—[Hon. MEMBERS: "Speech."]—on which the position of Britain as the premier maritime Power could well depend?

Mr. Marples: I can assure my hon. Friend that there has been no delay. These tenders have been placed fairly quickly since the new Government came into power. The extraordinary fact in this sphere is the way technical developments are taking place. It is difficult to decide when to go into production because of the different types of reactors which can be ordered.

Mr. Rankin: The right hon. Gentleman has said that tenders will be invited from selected firms. Can he tell us which the selected firms are?

Mr. Marples: There is a later Question on the Order Paper dealing with that subject.

Mr. Short: In case that Question is not reached, could the right hon. Gentleman tell us how many Tyneside firms have been selected to tender? The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the unemployment on Tyneside in this industry is the highest in the country.

Mr. Marples: In deference to the hon. Member who has put down the Question, I really must wait until it is reached.

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:

Dame IRENE WARD: To ask the Minister of Transport from which firms he has invited tenders for a reactor for installing in a prototype ship for experimental use in the marine application of nuclear power.

Mr. Speaker: Dame Irene Ward.

Mr. Rankin: On a point of order. In reply to supplementary questions from


the other side of the House and from myself a few minutes ago, the right hon. Gentleman said that he proposed to reply to our inquiries on a Question that was to follow. We have reached that Question. The hon. Member is absent. Will the Minister, therefore, make a statement as he promised?

Mr. Speaker: I have called the Question. The Minister could have answered the earlier supplementary question if he had wished to do so.

Mr. Short: As the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) is not here and this information is of considerable importance to the members of the shipbuilding industry, may I ask the Question?

Mr. Speaker: I cannot allow the hon. Member to do that.

NYASALAND (RIOTS, BLANTYRE)

Mr. Dugdale: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement on the riot which took place at Blantyre yesterday.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. lain Macleod): I have already asked the Governor for a report and I will make a further statement or circulate the reply in the OFFICIAL REPORT when it is received.

Mr. Dugdale: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that many people think it is most unfortunate that—according to Press reports—certain police officers behaved with truculence and stupidity? Is he aware that last night the Prime Minister himself said that the people who eventually rioted were extremely courteous gentlemen? Those were the Prime Minister's words. The people concerned were protesting against the imprisonment of Dr. Banda and the Government's apparent determination to include Nyasaland in the Federation. Does not the Minister agree that this further strengthens the Labour Party's decision not to take part in the work of the Monckton Commission, which refuses to discuss the secession of Nyasaland?

Mr. Macleod: I am sure that every hon. Member will regret what happened

in Blantyre yesterday, whatever its causes may have been. I am equally sure that we would be wise not to try to judge the matter until we have a full report.

Mr. Grimond: I accept what the right hon. Gentleman has just said, but is it not extremely disquieting that these reports should appear in newspapers which by no stretch of the imagination could be said to be prejudiced against the Government of Nyasaland? Can he confirm that the police are in the control of the Government of Nyasaland and not of the Government of the Federation? Having received these reports, will he most seriously consider holding an impartial inquiry into this incident?

Mr. Macleod: I will consider whether it is appropriate to hold an inquiry as soon as I have the report. I am sure that the hon. Member has read the main Press reports and will notice that they vary very much. The Guardian does not treat the matter in anything like as dramatic a way as do some other newspapers. I cannot tell exactly how matters stand until I have the report.

Mr. Gaitskell: I agree that we must refrain from further comment until we have the report, but will the right hon Gentleman make a statement on the report as soon as he has had the opportunity of studying it, on his own initiative?

Mr. Macleod: Yes, if that is the wish of the House.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS

Extended Summer Holiday Season

Mr. Mathew: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 12th February, I shall call attention to the need for a national plan for an extended summer holiday season in Great Britain, and move a Resolution.

Social Services

Mr. Ellis Smith: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 12th February, I shall call attention to the need for an immediate increase in the payments of the social services, particularly for the unemployed, the sick and the old-age pensioners, and move a Resolution.

Sunday Observance Laws

Mr. Sorensen: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 12th February, I shall call attention to the need for a Select Committee to inquire into the various laws relating to Sunday observance, and move a Resolution.

BILL PRESENTED

REQUISITIONED HOUSES

Bill to enable the Minister of Housing and Local Government to extend the period for which possession of requisitioned houses may be retained by local authorities under the Requisitioned Houses and Housing (Amendment) Act, 1955, and for purposes connected therewith, presented by Mr. Henry Brooke; supported by Sir Edward Boyle and Sir Keith Joseph; read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 55.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. R. A. Butler.]

HOUSING (UNFIT PREMISES)

3.40 p.m.

Mr. Leslie Hale: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to enable local authorities to issue a closing order nisi in respect of houses which are not reasonably fit for human habitation and which have become vacant by the re-housing of the occupants.
In the course of my researches I have not been able to find out who was the distinguished and thoughtful personality who pointed out that there are more ways of killing a cat than by stuffing it with cream. The Irish have, unfortunately, made this discovery in connection with horses, and it applies with greater force to Public Bills introduced by private Members.
The methods of killing or cessation of life are many and various. If it is an important Measure of high principle it may be accorded the benefit of being executed at this stage, rather on the ground that those who have to share the ignominy of voting against it may share it equally. On the other hand, it may be quietly throttled in Committee. We all know it can survive that process only by the limited number of Beta rays imported by the beneficence of the Minister.
I am in the happy position of asking leave to introduce a Bill to which the Minister himself, doubtless because it was December, gave a wintry smile. He said that he had no objection to the Measure, but that he did not think there was any need for it, and that it hardly merited the trouble and difficulty of the statutory process. I feel, therefore, that I perhaps ought to thank someone yesterday for the fact that, in relation to another Measure, I was spared all the difficulty of constant nursing on Fridays, with the provision of oxygen tents, which so rarely enable a Measure to survive. I am hoping that on this occasion I shall be able to introduce the Measure without undue difficulty and that the House will appreciate the difficulty under which I labour. In view of the fact that there has been this slight demonstration of friendliness from the other side, I must speak with excessive caution and delicacy.
I say at once that I greatly respect this honourable House and its decisions.


As a neo-democrat I abide by the decision of the Whips. I believe that this House is now a more truly representative microcosm of modern society than ever before. It represents all classes of society. We have very many able men on both sides of the house—mostly below the Gangway. The House may be called truly representative, and I heartily abide by its decisions.
In view of what the right hon. Gentleman said, I took the opportunity of seeking some information about the welcome that might be accorded to this Measure. What is proposes is not new legislation; it is merely an amending Measure. I am not much in favour of legislation. I venture to suggest that if we repealed every Statute that has been passed, with the exception of Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights and about 15 major Measures passed by the Labour Government of 1945, it would clear the way to sensible reform.
All I suggest is that we should embody in the most recent Housing Act a simple procedure whereby we could postpone until after the next meeting of the appropriate local authority the consideration of rehousing where there is reason to think that an alteration should be made in the Housing Act, for purposes of reconstruction, repair or closing, or for some action to be taken. That is my proposal.
I was greatly heartened when the Rural Councils Association wrote to me, quite unsolicited, and said that it cordially welcomed the Measure. Then, greatly daring but rather reckless, I sought the opinion of other bodies, who have not been so approving. No one disapproves of my proposed Measure, but no one gives it a hearty welcome. I suggest that it is worth considering. I intimated that, if I got leave to introduce the Bill, I proposed to set it down for Second Reading on Friday, 4th March, which would give me an opportunity of considering it further with the Minister and of having his view.
What we have to consider in this connection is not merely what is the right measure of the need now, but whether that need is likely to increase in the Future. Here I have to speak with excessive delicacy because, as I say, I do not want to raise any opposition in

this rather uncontroversial atmosphere. I have no desire to introduce into this mausoleum of calm any air or breath of controversy. But there are nuances, as Mr. Gladstone said. There is a difference of approach.
If I may, I will take what is, I think, a very non-controversial example from today's newspaper, and say to the House that we do look at things in different ways. I can understand and sympathise with the desire of the former Colonial Secretary to ascertain whether a cannibal had eaten his uncle Benjamin. For my part, I should like to know the physical and political effect of that rich diet upon the cannibal. In the same way, we have a different approach to many questions.
Will there be more need for rehousing and for closing orders in the future? I can well understand the thesis that building houses increases accommodation and provides a source of change. Nevertheless, it is a fact, of course, that building a large house at Bournemouth does not provide additional accommodation for Oldham.
The Minister went to Oldham and I think he came back convinced that Oldham has a problem. Oldham is a town in which there is a great deal of tolerance, co-operation and understanding between different classes of people. Landlords have been found by the corporation to be co-operative and agents willing to play. But, in particular, the corporation found one large firm of agents which never co-operates, which gives rise to difficulties. In winter time when people who are seriously ill have to be rehoused in a hurry, the situation can be difficult. Unless it is possible to hold up matters for a week or two a house will be relet to another family in circumstances in which the corporation has to rehouse them, too.
The very great increase in the cost of housing in the last eight years has rendered the problems of the local authorities much more difficult, and I think that it is also the fact that the somewhat streptococcic nature of the Bank Rate chart—with "Thorneycroftians" cheering at one end and "Heathcoat Amoryans" at the other—does add an air of uncertainty to rents of houses and housing costs. It makes the position a little more insecure.


Although I appreciate the political force of having a system in which we can say that one step is taken to prevent an uptrend and another is taken to secure a good one, and cheer ourselves either way, it does add grave uncertainty to the situation of housing authorities. I therefore suggest that this humble Measure ought not to be strangled at birth or executed formally on the Floor of this Chamber, but that it should be allowed to go to a Standing Committee and receive a little further consideration.
The Bill may well be very helpful in dealing with a comparatively small number of very serious cases. It may be useful to amend the Act and enable those local authority officials who have to take decisions in a hurry, and in difficult circumstances, to provide for further and more careful consideration.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Leslie Hale, Mr. Frank Allaun, Mr. Fernyhough, Mr. Harold Lever, and Mr. Paget.

HOUSING (UNFIT PREMISES)

Bill to enable local authorities to issue a closing order nisi in respect of houses which are not reasonably fit for human habitation and which have become vacant by the re-housing of the occupants, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 4th March, and to be printed. [Bill 56.]

Orders of the Day — COAL INDUSTRY [MONEY]

Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of this Session to authorise further advances to the National Coal Board for capital purposes, it is expedient to authorise such increases in the sums which by or under any enactment are to be or may be charged on or issued out of the Consolidated Fund, raised by borrowing or paid into the Exchequer as may result from replacing the restrictions on the power to make advances to the National Coal Board under subsection (1) of section twenty-six of the Coat Industry Nationalisation Act, 1946, by a provision limiting to seven hundred and fifty million pounds the aggregate amount outstanding by way of principal in respect of such advances.

Resolution agreed to.

Orders of the Day — COAL INDUSTRY BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Sir GORDON TOUCHE in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(EXTENSION OF POWER TO MAKE ADVANCES TO THE NATIONAL COAL BOARD.)

3.50 p.m.

Mr. Gerald Nabarro: I beg to move, in page 3, line 23, to leave out "seven hundred" and to insert "six hundred and seventy-five".

The Chairman: I think that it would be convenient if the Committee discussed this Amendment together with the next Amendment, in line 25, to leave out "and fifty".

Mr. Nabarro: This Amendment is designed to reduce the capital sums made available by Parliament to the National Coal Board, having regard to the position in the industry today, where there are excessive stocks of coal on the ground, and the statement of future policy made by my right hon. Friend on 23rd November, notably in connection with opencast coal mining and the conversion of oil-burning power stations from oil to coal.
Perhaps I might, at the outset, refer to a paragraph in the concluding speech of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary during the Second Reading of the Bill on 23rd November.
Stocking on a massive scale was undertaken with one purpose only in view, and it


has reached a level which cannot be justified except to prevent excessive closures of mines. That is why the stocks are there and that is why the money has been laid out. That is why the Bill is necessary today, to finance these for one purpose only. They are not justified economically or on any business basis. They are there to prevent hardship to miners and to run down collieries with the minimum of hardship."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd November. 1959; Vol. 614, c. 151–2.]
That, of course, was a highly controversial statement. It has always been an issue, not only between the opposite sides of the House of Commons, but among right hon. and hon. Members sitting on the same side, as to the attitude of Parliament to this major nationalised industry. Because it is the quintessence of my personal view, I think I may repeat what I said on this issue as long ago as 3rd December, 1958:
The issue in my mind is whether the National Coal Board is to be run as a social welfare club or as a commercial organisation. If it is to be run as a social welfare club, Parliament must give it a subsidy. If it is not so to he run, Parliament must not give it a subsidy."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd December, 1958; Vol 596, c. 1223.]
That is the issue inherent in the finances which we are discussing this afternoon.
My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has said that these very large stocks—and most of the finance under the Bill is concerned with those very large stocks—are to prevent the excessive rate of run-down of the mines, to prevent any grave dislocation in the employment of miners. He has said that it is not justified economically. I hold the opposite view. I hold the view, and so, officially, does the whole of my party, that nationalised industries are to be run as strictly commercial enterprises. That was what we said during the General Election in October, 1959. That is the view I hold today, and, holding that view, it is repugnant to me to be asked to vote moneys for holding excessive stocks of coal which are not likely to diminish in the next twelve to eighteen months, in my opinion. Here again, I am in conflict with my right hon. Friend the Minister because I say that they are not likely to diminish in the next twelve to eighteen months. They are likely to increase—

Mr. J. T. Price: I should like to put this point to the hon. Gentleman. If he feels so strongly, as

a matter of principle, that Parliament ought not to provide public money for the orderly running down of an industry, to prevent hardship to the workers and their wives and families, why did he and his hon. Friends vote almost unanimously for the Cotton Industry Act, which provides £50 million of public money—as against a statement by the Minister that it would be only £30 million—for the cotton industry, most of which will go to the employers and not to the workers?

Mr. Nabarro: Parliament has been voting hundreds of millions of pounds year after year for the orderly conduct of the Coal Board. Obviously I cannot dwell on the point at length, but the amount of money involved in the cotton industry legislation is relatively tiny—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—yes, relatively tiny, compared with the sums of money involved here, and, incidentally, the considerations are entirely different.
I am talking today on the single point of whether it is a good thing for the nation that the taxpayers should go on vesting very large sums of money for an increasing scale of stocking of largely unsaleable coal. That is the issue inherent in this Amendment. I have not sought to negative the whole of the increase in borrowing power. If hon. Members will look at the terms of the Amendment, they will see that I am seeking to cut in half the additional borrowing power. The main diminution in this Amendment will be noted in the course of my speech to be exactly related to the position of stocks.
During the last three years there has been a dramatic change in the position of the coal industry. Inland consumption of coal has fallen by 27 million tons per annum, from 218 million tons to 191 million tons. The production of coal has not fallen by as much. It has fallen from 222 million tons in 1956 to 206 million tons in 1959, a fall of only 16 million tons. But the stocks have steadily gone upwards. For example, twelve months ago undistributed stocks of coal were no more than about 17 million tons. Today they have risen to the phenomenal figure of 36 million tons. In addition to that, 36 million—is the hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Wyatt) awaking from his long slumbers?

Mr. Woodrow Wyatt: The actual figure is 35·3 million tons.

Mr. Nabarro: Yes, 35·3 million tons. If we add to that figure 14 million tons in respect of distributed stocks, the stocking of coal is, as near and makes no matter, 50 million tons—I am not talking in decimals, I am giving to approximately a million tons, which is good enough for the purposes of this debate.
The value of the 36 million tons of coal undistributed is put at £142 million, that is the sum of capital moneys of the Coal Board which is virtually sterilised by these excessive stocks of coal. There can be no contradiction as to that figure. What greatly concerns me at the moment is that the consumption of coal, instead of going up consonant with the large increase in industrial production, is not going up. It is going down.
4.0 p.m.
I have compared two exactly comparable weeks, the first the period of seven days ended 10th January, 1959, and the second the period of seven days ended 9th January, 1960. In the meantime, between those two periods, industrial production in this country has risen by about 10 per cent. The weather was approximately comparable in the two periods. The weather most largely affects the domestic market. On 10th January, 1959, 4·537 million tons of coal had been consumed in the preceding week. On 9th January, 1960, the figure was 4·268 million tons of coal. Notwithstanding an increase in industrial production of 10 per cent., the consumption of coal had fallen by about 300,000 tons in a single week.
These are figures which we should be very unwise to ignore. Hon. Members opposite will clearly recall that in earlier coal debates, for example, on 3rd December, 1958, it was stated that the falling demand for coal was due to what hon. Members opposite called "industrial stagnation." I contradicted that at the time. Today, we see a position in which industrial production has gone up by a very large amount and yet the demand for industrial coal, which is the most important consideration, continues to fall.
It is for this reason that I tend to quarrel with my right hon. Friend the

Minister, though his claim to have a crystal ball is as good as mine, his professional advice is as good as mine and his assessment of the future position is as good as mine—no better, no worse. In truth, none of us has a crystal ball. None of us can look twelve months ahead and say what the level of industrial production will then be. None of us can look twelve months ahead and say how warm, or otherwise, the weather will be in January, 1961. It is therefore difficult to assess what will be the overall demand for coal during the next twelve months.
I beg the Committee to look again at my right hon. Friend's estimate for 1960. He has said that he proposes that the production of coal shall not be allowed to rise above 195 million tons. He has said that the consumption of coal is estimated to be 196 million tons. He has said that he will reduce the stocks by only about 1 million tons, out of 50 million tons, which is a reduction of only 2 per cent. That is at a time when £142 million of national money is tied up in undistributed stocks and a further £60 million is tied up in distributed stocks.
I said to my right hon. Friend on Second Reading—and it will bear repetition today—that his proposition in this regard is "futile and nugatory". I would far prefer him to have a more dynamic policy for an early reduction of this dreadful drug on the coal market of these excessive stocks; and that is one of the purposes of the Amendment.
Far worse is the lengthening financial shadow which is cast by these excessive stocks upon budgetary possibilities next April and the prospect for the Conservative Party of again being able to honour their election obligations and to reduce taxation.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Tell us what should be done now.

Mr. Nabarro: The hon. Member should not be impatient. I have not even concluded my preamble.
I said that my right hon. Friend's proposition was not acceptable to me and is not sufficiently dynamic. I believe—and my view is shared, because it is an extension of the figures of the declining demand for coal which I gave a few moments ago—that far from using 196


million tons of coal in 1960, we may well use only 185 million tons. I believe that in the following year that figure may fall by a further 5 million tons to 180 million tons, on account of three major factors—and these are associated directly with this financial Amendment.
The first factor is the continuing higher level of efficiency with which coal is being used in industry and in the home. There can be no disputing that. Every creation of a smoke-control zone in an industrial area means a diminishing demand for coal. Even if coal is used as the prime product and the means of heating is provided by electricity, still electricity provides that heating more efficiently and smokelessly and uses less cal per B.T.U. than does the burning of raw bituminous coal under a boiler. It is inevitable all over the country that factors of that kind will continue to operate not only on account of fuel efficiency measures but on account of the intrusion of oil fuel, as well.
It is useless for the National Union of Mineworkers to continue their campaign, the jungle war as Mr. Paynter called it a couple of weeks ago, ably supported—if "ably" is the correct word in this context—by Sir James Bowman, Chairman of the National Coal Board, who used the phrase, "A damned good speech by Mr. Paynter". The Socialists are very divided in these matters. There may be Sir James Bowman and Mr. Paynter in one camp, but that eminent Socialist, Mr. Malcolm Muggeridge, is in the other camp.

Mr. Ellis Smith: He is not a Socialist.

Mr. Nabarro: It is no good the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) saying that Mr. Muggeridge is not a Socialist. Of course he is. You know he is, Sir Gordon.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Ask some of Mr. Malcolm Muggeridge's friends.

The Chairman: The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) should not attribute knowledge of that sort to me.

Mr. Nabarro: I beg your pardon, Sir Gordon. I was not attributing knowledge to you, but endeavouring to be strictly Parliamentary in my approach and to address my comments to the Chair, where they properly belong.

Mr. Wyatt: Mr. Wyatt rose—

Mr. Nabarro: I will give way to the hon. Member in a moment.
Mr. Malcolm Muggeridge wrote in the Sunday Pictorial on 10th January:
Nothing, in my view, could be more advantageous than for all the old, grimy world of the industrial revolution to become redundant. In its place I should like to see clean, light, modern factories, whose power was atomic, or electric, derived from oil fuel, not coal… An enlightened and far-seeing Government could, and should, minimise the hardships.
He added:
But the changes must come, and those who oppose them are modern Luddites.
Does the hon. Member for Bosworth wish to be a Luddite as well as Rip Van Winkle, awakened from his slumbers, as I described him on Second Reading.

Mr. Wyatt: I can at least get my facts rather more accurate than the hon. Member for Kidderminster. Mr. Malcolm Muggeridge, whom I know very well, has for a very long time been as much opposed to the Labour Party as is the hon. Member himself.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Nabarro: I should not have thought that there was any political or other affinity between Mr. Malcolm Muggeridge and myself.
These changes are inevitable, and I wish to minimise hardship in the mining areas where there is displacement of colliers, but it would be futile for the House to disregard the scientific changes which are going on and not to make the necessary financial preparations to meet them. That is why I want the figures in the Bill to be re-examined.
May I deal, first, with the primary reason for the reduction in amount which is given in the Amendment? I refer to the topic of opencast coal. Whatever hon. Members opposite may think of my Parliamentary performances during the last decade, at least they cannot accuse me of any lack of consistency. I made my maiden speech in the House in March, 1950, largely on the topic of opencast coal mining. Ever since, I have consistently opposed opencast coal mining as the scourge of rural England. I did so when hon. Members opposite were vociferous in their


demands for an increase in and an extension of opencast coal mining in 1950 and 1951.

Mr. William Blyton: No.

Mr. Nabarro: The hon. Member must carry his Parliamentary researches into the Library of the House and study the debates during the days when his party was in office and was strongly in support of opencast coal mining. Jeers and sneers were directed at my activity in the country, which was against opencast coal mining. Today, I am being utterly consistent.
My right hon. Friend proposes to reduce opencast coal mining from 11 million tons mined in 1959 to 7 million tons mined in 1960, and he says that he will gradually reduce it until in 1965 it is only 2 million tons. That is a very slow rate of run-down. I am pleading the case of the National Union of Mineworkers and I expect to be offered an honorary vice-presidency of that union when I have concluded my speech. Of course, I am pleading the case which they happen to have put—except that I put it years before they did.
In this context, the National Union of Mineworkers is right. Let us take the case of Derbyshire. My right hon. Friend has refrained from comment on this so far. Today, in Derbyshire, there is the idiotic position that fresh opencast coal mining is going on in the east of the county while the coal is being put into disused limestone quarries in the west of the county. There it will remain for one, two, three or more years. In Shropshire, not far from my constituency, there is a large dump of coal which has been put down on a clay bed. It is soft coal. It started to steam a few weeks ago. It is now firing. It is being removed hurriedly at great expense to a local power station in an effort to use it, as a panic measure.
This position in respect of opencast mining exists all over the country. Is it logical that we should seek to mine 7 million tons of opencast coal in 1960? The cost of it at site is about £3 a ton. There is a further £1 a ton to put it down into stock, making £4, and there is 4s. per annum in stocking costs for every year that it is held. In that

7 million tons of opencast coal mining alone, in the year 1960, is tied up £28 million. That £28 million, calculated at £4 a ton, is provided for in the Bill.
I want to cancel at once, by mutual agreement, 5 million tons out of the 7 million tons of opencast coal mining this year. Because contracts have been entered into, I want to do what I have had to do many times in business when I have been responsible for making a long-term contract and, usually due to changed conditions, it has not been possible for me to work right through it; and that is to rupture the contract by mutual consent, paying an agreed sum in compensation. That is what I want to do with opencast coal mining.
I hope that my right hon. Friend, in replying to the Amendment, will not say to me in pious terms that he honours the sanctity of contracts and I do not. Nothing is further removed from the truth. He again refrained from replying to my question on Second Reading when I asked him what would be the cost of rupturing these contracts. Surely it could not be as much as £28 million in a single year for mining unwanted coal, which seems to me to be the height of folly.
Hon. Members will read into my first Amendment that I seek a reduction of £25 million. I have accounted at once for £28 million in respect of a diminution of opencast contracts. From the £28 million must be subtracted a sum equal to the payment of compensation for rupture of those contracts. Out of the £28 million I would expect to arrive at a net saving of nearly £20 million. I ask to reduce the amount by only £25 million.
There may be room for argument about what are the exact figures. Of course, I do not know. I am not in the happy position of Sir James Bowman, who made the contracts, of being able to go to the opencast contractors and ask them how much they will accept for the rupture of the contracts. I hope that my right hon. Friend knows. I hope that today he will not reply in terms of this year only, because he proposes to continue opencast mining until 1965. I want to see the back of it—all but 2 million tons during the current year 1960, and those 2 million tons


would be in respect of special coals from special sites which have special application in the immediate district of the opencast mine.
I hope that I shall carry at least the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Snow) with me, because his constituency has suffered, like the constituency of the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown), possibly far more than any other Midlands constituency if not more than any other constituency in the country, from a process which I repeat can only properly be called the scourge of rural England.

Mr. Julian Snow: Since my name has been mentioned, perhaps the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) will permit me to say that I have always considered him to be quite unconsciously the most ardent advocate and protagonist of the oil fuel loss in the House of Commons. I do not dissent very much from what he has said about opencast mining, but I wish that he would attach as much importance to the stimulation of the demand for coal. There is plenty of room for that, as there is for the reduction of opencast mining.
May I perhaps refresh the hon. Gentleman's memory, encyclopaedic though his knowledge is on this? At least one oil company is itself operating a bridging operation to convey its oil by rail from the point of entry to London. That is just one example of how coal consumption might be stimulated.

Mr. Nabarro: I am deeply grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his generous tributes to my activities in the House of Commons on fuel and power subjects. I will pass straight away to his point.
The hon. Member has evidently been following my speech with assiduity, because my very next paragraph deals with this subject of encouraging the demand for coal. There are many culprits. Sad to relate, the National Union of Mineworkers was one. It was not until I sent that memorable greetings telegram to Mr. Ernest Jones, its president, that he converted the oil-burning plant at his headquarters in Euston Road to the use of coal.
What are Her Majesty's Government doing today? The taxpayers are being called upon to finance huge surplus

stocks of coal. This afternoon I have received an Answer from the Home Secretary about the use of fuel in prisons. It is admitted that seven prisons are being switched over from coal to oil. I ask the Home Secretary not to carry out that conversion and to keep them on coal. The taxpayers are financing not only the huge coal stocks, but Her Majesty's detainees in these prisons. Should we be concerned that their labour is less in these prisons? Is the amount of work associated with the use of coal so much more than the amount of work associated with the use of oil?
The Home Secretary sent me this Answer today. It will be printed in the OFFICIAL REPORT tomorrow morning. I rang my right hon. Friend's private secretary this morning and asked for this Written Answer to be delivered to me at 3.25 p.m. today precisely, so that I could use it in the debate. It was delivered at 3.20 p.m. That was very efficient. This is what the Home Secretary says in reply to my Questions:
The National Industrial Fuel Efficiency Service advised"—
incidentally, that was three years ago—
that in this type of case"—
that is, the prison case—
either an oil-fired system or a coal-fired system with mechanical stoking should be adopted, and in the particular circumstances of the closed prisons where the difficulties of layout were considerable the former"—
that is, oil—
was chosen. Including the fuel tanks, the capital cost of each of these installations will be between £6,000 and £7,000 and running costs are about the same as for coal firing.
Further modernisation schemes are under consideration and the National Coal Board is being consulted.
What my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary does not say is that he has taken my advice, stopped the conversion to oil-burning appliances and put them on to low-grade coal, using the coal which the taxpayers have paid for and which is lying around in limestone quarries in Derbyshire and elsewhere. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power will convey to the Home Secretary a message that we expect these prisons to continue using coal. If he does not, I promise him that I shall be very rough with him in the early future. It is a suicidal policy to ask taxpayers to pay for coal in national


stocks and to pay for conversion to oil in Her Majesty's prisons thus using an imported fuel instead of an indigenous fuel.
There is another major issue, again associated with the sum by which I seek to diminish the borrowing powers. It is the burning of oil at power stations. It is analogous to the position with opencast mining. When the nation was very short of fuel two or three years ago, a number of power stations were swung over to oil burning or designed for burning oil. As a result of representations made by both sides of the Committee in the last twelve months or so, the amount of oil conversion taking place has been reduced, but it has not been reduced by very much. The amount clawed back from oil to coal is only 1·7 million tons in 1960 and will rise to only 3·9 million tons by 1965.
I cannot ascertain—the present Minister is never willing to tell me, nor was his predecessor—what is the coal equivalent being burned at power stations in terms of oil today. Forming my own assessment—I am open to correction—I believe that it is about 6 million tons of coal equivalent in terms of oil. Again, long-term contracts between the Central Electricity Generating Board and the oil companies are in being. Those contracts should be ruptured. I believe that compensation should be made payable in exactly like fashion to the opencast workings being wound up at an earlier date in order to diminish the burden on the taxpayers during the next few years, as a result of further and large increases in coal stocks.
I pass to the Coal Board's finances as distinct from the user of coal. The last published figures show that at 31st December, 1958, the Board's loss forward was £29 million. My assessment of its losses during 1959 is a further £21 million. I believe that the total of its loss forward at 31st December, 1959, will amount to £50 million. Is that £50 million provided for in the Bill? I am not sure that it is. Further, I believe that the probable loss of the Board during 1960 will be a further £50 million, making the loss forward at 31st December, 1960 a total of £100 million. I am not cavilling at that. At the moment, I am merely asking pertinent questions. Is that £100 million loss forward that I estimate to

the end of the Board's present financial year, namely, 31st December, 1960, included in the Bill? I hope that my right hon. Friend will answer that point carefully when he replies.

Mr. Wyatt: I do not know if I understood the hon. Gentleman aright, but if he said that he thought that in one year coming the Coal Board would make a loss of £50 million, despite regrouping and the drop in production, and so forth, will he explain why? I listen with very great interest and respect to what he says, because he takes much trouble to find out his facts. It would be interesting to know why he says that.

Mr. Nabarro: I form that estimate, first, because of the further heavy increases in stocks which will take place if the Ministerial estimate is right. The Ministerial estimate is that consumption will be 196 million tons, that 195 million tons will be mined and that stocks will decline by only one million tons. I believe that by the end of 1960 production will be a good deal higher, consumption will be a good deal lower and that the total of stocks will have risen from 50 million tons, which is the approximate figure at present, to 75 million tons. That is the principal cause for my concern with the finances that the Minister has advanced as his estimate for the next few months.
Not only are there the finances of the Board and its losses forward. There is another very substantial cloud on the horizon. There is the miners' pay claim. I should like my right hon. Friend to apply himself to this very delicate and difficult matter, because it will be the House of Commons that has to finance the miners' pay claim if it is granted. It is no good arguing about that. The price of coal cannot be increased by the amount of the miners' pay claim, because if the price of coal was made any higher the demand would diminish further, oil would be given further advantages, the consumption of coal would fall further and the losses of the Board would be greater.
The miners' pay claim was first announced in the newspapers a week ago. It is for no less than £75 million in a single year. The Board estimates that a 2s. a shift rise for 300,000 day-wage men would cost £15 million a year. Arbitration on a cut from 7½ hours a day


to 7 hours a day for underground workers would cost £57 million. If the 40-hour week were adopted instead of he present 42½ hours, it would cost a further £3 million in respect of meal breaks. The total of those three figures is £75 million. The consumer will not pay, because the price of coal cannot be raised. No one denies that. Therefore, if the pay claim is conceded the Board must find it from its own resources. That would mean a commensurate increase in the loss of the Board equal to £75 million a year. That is the Board's own estimate, not mine.
What will the Committee say this afternoon? Will it say that the miners cannot have any more pay?

Mr. Ellis Smith: That is what the hon. Gentleman is saying.

Mr. Nabarro: No. I am stating the problem. Because my right hon. Friend carries his estimates under the Bill forward for twelve months. If the pay claim is conceded, it will immediately make nonsense of his financial estimates.
4.30 p.m.
What I want my right hon. Friend to say is that he has fully taken into account not only the assessed loss forward of the Board by the end of the year 1960, but the probability of the Board's conceding the miners' pay claim, which would immediately drive a coach and four through all the provisions of the Bill and increase the financial requirement by £75 million in a single year.

Mr. Walter Monslow: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether he thinks that miners will accept conditions which were characteristic of private enterprise days, when they did not have an economic wage which would give them a reasonable standard of living? If so, he is in for a rude awakening. If there is anything morally wrong in the miners enjoying good conditions and wages, the hon. Gentleman should look at the other aspect of the picture—takeover bids, which make £1½ million profit a day.

Mr. Nabarro: There are many ways in which large capital gains can be made —for example, £250,000 on the football pools, tax-free. That is all part of the same theme, but in no way related to the coal problem. I immediately reply

to the hon. Gentleman that if he cares to read my speeches over the years on the subject of coal mining, he will see that I have always been the strongest possible advocate of the men who do the dirtiest and most dangerous job in British industry—at the coal face—receiving the highest possible wage.
What I am proposing this afternoon is an allied but extremely difficult problem and hon. Members opposite who are representatives of the National Union of Mineworkers will be doing their followers the gravest disservice if they run away from this problem. Here is a pay claim of £75 million which cannot be offset by increases in coal prices and which can be met if the Board concede it, by putting up the rate of its annual loss. What I am asking is what my right hon. Friend feels about the pay claim? Has he allowed for it in his estimates in the Bill? If not, then this afternoon he must give urgent attention to it.
There are no more apropriate words on this problem than those written in the Daily Telegraph on 18th November in an article entitled "Coal Stocks", which wound up with this sentence:
The country cannot contemplate an endless vista of accumulating stocks and accumulating borrrowings".
They are very telling words this afternoon.
I want to stop those stocks rising further. Fifty million tons in stock is quite enough. We are nearly at the end of the winter. Stocks always start to rise steeply at the beginning of April. Unless we do what I am advocating and drastically reduce opencast and drastically cut down the tonnage of oil burned in power stations and the conversion to oil, my prognostication of 75 million tons of coal by the beginning of the next coal winter will be a reality.

Mr. Wyatt: Has the hon. Gentleman taken into account the fact that since coal stocks reached their highest peak, on 12th December, they have been running down at a rate of more than ¼ million tons a week and are now 1·2 million tons lower than on 12th December? Why does he think that that trend will not continue?

Mr. Nabarro: That is not a correct figure. I have here the statistical digest


issued by the Ministry of Power. In January so far, the diminution of stocks as a whole has been something less than 1 million tons compared with December.

Mr. Wyatt: The hon. Gentleman is wrong about that.

Mr. Nabarro: I am not. I have the Ministry's statistical digest here.

Mr. Wyatt: Mr. Wyatt rose—

Mr. Nabarro: Total stocks, distributed and undistributed, have diminished by only about 1 million tons in a period of exceptionally cold weather. Supposing the hon. Gentleman's figure of ¼ million tons a week is correct, which it is not, going forward eight weeks to early April means a decrease of only 2 million tons, and from early April stocks will start to increase steeply, as they do every year. In the year of the greatest famine for coal, in 1948, between the end of the coal winter and the beginning of the next coal winter stocks went up by 10 million tons. That is the period of stocking.
Even if we reduce stocks by ¼million tons a week, which I deny, that is only 2 million tons off 50 million tons by the beginning of April, and from the beginning of April to the beginning of November stocks will mount very fast. For all the reasons I have explained, I think that by the end of the year total stocks will reach approximately 75 million tons.
I do not believe that we can assist the National Coal Board by Parliamentary sloppiness. This is a genuinely acute and practical problem of mining and finance. In these Amendments I am not seeking to reduce the allocation of capital moneys to the Board. I have sought to relate the amount of the reduction in the Amendment to a direct diminution of opencast mining and to conversion of power stations from oil back to coal.
On those grounds, I believe that the Amendments should be supported in all parts of the Committee. Hon. Members opposite who are representatives of the National Union of Mineworkers will have a very difficult time with their members when they go back to their lodges and explain that they could not support me in my Amendment when I, a Tory voice, was seeking to espouse their cause.
The hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason), who has just taken his seat, has been the sternest advocate in the country of the very things which I have been saying this afternoon. He is a close colleague of Mr. Paynter, general secretary of the National Union of Mineworkers—the only difference being that one is a Communist and the other a Socialist. He is at one with me in wanting to rid us of opencast coal mining. I hope that he will support me in the Lobby, if there is a Lobby—[Hon. MEMBERS: "0h."] It is early days yet. I must wait for my right hon. Friend's reply. There have been bloodless victories in my activities on earlier occasions. I shall hope for something not dissimilar this afternoon.
I say to my right hon. and hon. Friends that we were elected in October, 1959, to ensure, among other things, that these huge State corporations were conducted on a commercial, profit-earning basis. We were not elected to support a system, as the Daily Telegraph calls it, of an endless vista of accumulated stocks and borrowing. That is the worst form of financial improvidence. We should give expression to our views by supporting an Amendment of this kind and putting the Coal Board into a better perspective in the community, and adding to its prospects of future financial solvency. For all those reasons, I claim support from both sides of the Committee.

Mr. John Peyton: I should like to support the Amendment which has been so ably moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro). I am sure that I will carry the Committee with me when I say that my hon. Friend has added a great deal to his reputation, which he always enjoys here, for his quietness and modesty and, above all, his brevity. I am sure that my hon. Friend ought at least to have awakened some echoes in all parts of the Committee about the serious situation with which the industry is confronted.
The question which we are considering is whether the investment which we are asked to make is a proper use of our national resources, bearing in mind the rival claims which can be made on those resources. One might mention the subject of roads. I would not at all mind if my right hon. Friend the Minister were


to get up at the Dispatch Box this afternoon and tell the Committee that not only was it his intention—with the exception perhaps of the 2 million tons mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster—to cancel the opencast mining programme, but that he would make a present of the earth shifting machinery to the Minister of Transport to enable him to get on with the road programme more quickly. That would ensure a much more profitable use of the machinery and would relieve the countryside of a pest and a scourge with which it has had to bear far too long.
Amendments such as these are virtually the only resort of those on both sides of the Committee who feel increasing and continuing anxiety at the relations between Parliament and a nationalised industry. I do not think that anyone in the Committee today would be prepared to get up and say that he was satisfied with things as they are.

Mr. Monslow: Do I understand the hon. Gentleman to say that he now favours the denationalisation of coal and the railways?

Mr. Peyton: I have heard the hon. Gentleman make many astonishing observations in the past—and some shrewd; but 1 am bound to say that that was not one of his best. I was once asked by the hon. Gentleman and, indeed, by a series of hon. Gentlemen opposite if I were in favour of denationalising the railways. I gave the perfectly simple and straight answer, "No"—for the reason that no one would buy them. That is my answer today—applying to the coal industry.

Mr. Monslow: That is an excuse and not a reason.

Mr. Peyton: A great many hopes, some of them very pious and with the thinnest foundations, have been expressed over the years about this industry. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby, South (Mr. P. Noel-Baker), in April, 1951, when moving a similar Bill, said:
The House can call them to account.
that at is, the nationalised industries. He went on to describe the Bill in rather glowing terms as enshrining

… the hopes of British miners and of British industry."—{OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th April, 1951; Vol. 487, c. 861 and 865.]
That Bill did not form in any way an adequate foundation for the hopes of the British miners and certainly not of British industry.
One point with which I am particularly concerned this afternoon is to repeat what the late Lord Bracken said when he pointed out what nonsense it is to say that the House can always call these industries to account. If we are frank with the public and with ourselves we are bound to admit that we do not have the opportunity which we ought to have and that we are in a dilemma because of our lack of knowledge of the day to day affairs of these industries. If Parliament is to continue in the unhappy role of banker of a great industry such as this, then it needs, and must have, greater opportunities for far more regular discussion of it. That is one of the objects of the Amendments today.
My right hon. Friend the Minister, on the Second Reading of the Bill, said:
… the first limit set by the Bill, of £700 million, is likely to be reached in the financial year 1961–62.
He continued:
Therefore, a review by Parliament is almost certain in two years' time …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd November, 1959; Vol. 614, c. 44.]
I say as clearly as I can to the Committee today that, in my view, that interval is far too long, taking into account the present grave state of affairs. The interval should be shorter and I hope that my right hon. Friend will not feel tempted to say, "Well, there is always the opportunity afforded by Supply Days." That gives no comfort to me as a Government supporter. Traditionally, the Opposition enjoy the privilege of nomination of the subject for debate on Supply Days, but so far as the interest and opportunities of those of us on this side of the House are concerned we do not regard them as being adequately safeguarded.
4.45 p.m.
We are asked by the Bill to replenish the borrowing powers of the Board by £76 million. As my right hon. Friend said, in a rather informal, charming and old-world way, that figure would be rounded up into two lots of £50 million.


I could do that with that sort of round up. It would be very popular and I am sure that it would be acceptable to both sides of the Committee. I hope, without much confidence, that this is the last round up of this kind. I am bound to say that the sombre prophecies just made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster have a note of real conviction behind them.
The Parliamentary Secretary has made it quite clear—he is very candid about it —that without the massive stocking which has taken place the Bill would not he necessary. It is about stocks that I should like to speak for a moment. They fell very slightly in the week ending 16th January and now stand at the very large figure of 35·3 million tons, double the figure of a year ago. It is worth noticing, when considering this figure, that fuel oil sales are now up by about one-quarter on those of last year. The Minister has told us that the written down value of these stocks is £142 million. He has also told us that the cost to the Coal Board of stocking them is about £50 million and he also said, to my sorrow, that the stocks are to be reduced only by the paltry amount of 1 million tons during the present calendar year. I want to ask one or two questions about that.
What will the cost of the stocks eventually be if they are put on rail in say two or three years' time? What will their calorific value be, bearing in mind that a large proportion of the stocks sonsist of fines? Are we eventually to be faced not merely with a temporary investment to finance stocks but with what will be a serious, heavy and permanent financial loss.
I am concerned with the question of consumption. The whole of this plan and the estimates which are being put before the Committee today depend on whether the Board has guessed right about future consumption. We have to bear in mind that during the three years from 1956 to 1959 demand has gone down by 33 million tons. In 1959, there was very slightly more energy consumed in this country than in 1958. Yet the share of coal went down sharply and stocks increased by 16 million tons.
The Economist of 16th January pointed out that

Not until November, in spite of the rapid rise in industrial activity, did coal consumption in any month last year fractionally exceed that 12 months before.
What will check this general trend? I do not find it easy to accept what the Minister said on Second Reading. I find it very difficult to place any real confidence behind the hopes which he then expressed. The National Coal Board itself, on page 7 of the "Revised Plan for Coal", has referred to various factors which have been responsible for the drop in demand for coal. These include the use of other fuels, greater fuel efficiency and the clean air policy. These things are likely to continue. Certainly, there will be greater fuel efficiency—we must all hope for it. Clean air policy will, we hope, make further progress and no one can contest the prospects which face other fuels.
With commendable promptitude, my hon. Friend has called attention this afternoon to the decision of the Home Secretary to turn over six or seven prisons from coal to oil firing. I believe that this trend will continue and that it will be much more difficult to check than either my right hon. Friend the Minister or the Coal Board appears to believe.
The Board has announced certain measures—I do not want to go into them in detail—and we very much hope that they will achieve the intended result. The Board mentions particularly, on page 7 of the "Revised Plan for Coal", that steps are being taken to improve the control over quality. That is welcome, even if belated. I do not see in this or any other document any indication or evidence that the Board is aware of the state of its public relations or that it is conscious of how it stands with the man in the street.
To mention one small example, a man aged 64, who is now out of work, came some distance to see me the other day bringing with him a large parcel of wholly non-combustible material which had been sold to him as coal. He told me that he had been forced to change from cooking by coal to the use of electricity. This sort of thing is going on in a great many homes. But in reading the publications of the Board I cannot find any awareness or regret, or even, perhaps, any sense of shame, at the way


in which the Board has treated so many of its customers. Many small retailers to whom complaints are made regularly by members of the public are forced back on the answer, "We have to accept what we are given and we have no redress." This is a very unsatisfactory state of affairs.
I am glad to hear that the Board is taking steps to improve its technical and sales service as well as its collaboration with the makers of appliances and with the distributing industry. I doubt very much, however, whether it is not far too late in the day to be talking of such things and whether, indeed, these things will have any chance of bringing about the quite dramatic reversal in trends that is necessary if the hopes expressed in the Bill are to fructify.
Since I have been a Member of the House of Commons, I have always refrained from intemperate, wild and unrestrained criticism of nationalised industries. The position in which those who are in charge of and responsible for these industries find themselves is invidious and difficult enough already without politicians seeking to exacerbate and exaggerate the problems which confront them.
When confronted, as we are, however, with these proposals today, for the reasons I have given I cannot feel sufficient confidence in the ability of the Board to foresee the future, nor do I derive any comfort whatever from the deplorable state of its relations with the public. It is, therefore, with a good deal of strength and earnestness that I ask my right hon. Friend the, Minister to give these two Amendments his blessing and to accept them, simply to Parliament an opportunity to discharge its proper duty.

Mr. Harold Finch: I desire to oppose the Amendment. In proposing it, the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) covered a great deal of ground and I intend to deal with some of his remarks. In opening the Second Reading debate, the Minister said that the Bill contained one principal Clause, which is the subject of debate this afternoon. In introducing the Bill, the Minister said that it was
inseparably connected with the Coal Board's 'Revised Plan for Coal'" —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd November, 1959; Vol. 614, c. 42.]

That being so, the Committee must be clear where it stands in this matter.
If the Amendment were carried, it would immediately undermine the policy of the Coal Board in its efforts to fulfil its programme for the next five years. It is all very well for the hon. Member for Kidderminster to talk about the stocking of coal and opencast working, with much of which we on this side agree, but that is not the subject of the Amendment. The Amendment would reduce the borrowing powers of the Board in its efforts to compete in the present situation. Indeed, if the Amendment were carried, we would be crippling the efforts of the Board to compete with oil.
Even under its revised plan, the Board has already cut its original programme by £175 million because, as the hon. Member for Kidderminster rightly pointed out, there has been a serious fall in consumption, particularly during the last three years. For that reason, capital expenditure proposals have had to be revised. During the past three years, the demand for coal has fallen by 30 million tons.
Under the revised plan, without any further cutting back of the proposals, 200 pits are to close during the next five years. This will entail redundancy among a large section of miners and will considerably reduce the industry's manpower, which already, during the last two years, has fallen by 70,000. By the end of this year, manpower will have been reduced by 120,000, or one-fifth of the original manpower in the industry. These figures are serious. That is what will happen under the existing plan, without any further reduction in the borrowing powers of the Board.
This is an industry which, by its very nature, is relatively inflexible and yet the Board, with this rapid drop in consumption, has had to meet the situation in such circumstances. Those connected with the mining industry will appreciate that this is an industry in which one has to plan ahead. Pits cannot be sunk in a few months. It is not like dealing with a factory. One has to plan ahead. It takes a considerable time to win coal for the nation. The Board, however, has had to adjust its programme in a very short time. If now, by the Amendment, we restrict the


Board's capital expenditure, we shall be affecting the efficiency and productivity of the Board.
I warn the Committee that the sense of insecurity already prevailing in the industry can be aggravated by the speeches that we have already heard.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Peyton: The hon. Member has made it quite clear that he has misunderstood the main purpose of this Amendment, which is to ensure that the matter comes back before Parliament before things get much worse.

Mr. Finch: There are certain features of this Bill which make it necessary for the Minister to come to Parliament in certain circumstances. That is already provided in the Bill. I was trying to point out that the speeches to which we have listened on this Amendment will cause serious concern among those employed in this industry. They will feel that serious as the position is at the moment, to injure in any way the programme of the National Coal Board during the next five years will place the industry in greater insecurity than ever. That is the situation which will be read into this Amendment which will impair the Board's reconstruction programme as well as its fuel efficiency policy and its efforts to compete with oil.
I need not remind the Committee that this is an extractive industry. Without investment, coal output would go down. The industry has to be replenished from time to time, and this is a part of the investment policy. The Amendment would seriously impair the Coal Board's investment programme, and I can only conclude—I want to be quite frank about this—that the Amendment is designed to cripple the Board and to weaken the industry in its competition with oil.
A lot has been said by hon. Members opposite on Second Reading, and again today, about the need for the Board to stand up to the oil industry. We have been told that the Board must compete with oil, that it must prepare itself, that it must reduce the cost of production and increase productivity. The Government have said, "We cannot assist you. It is for the Board to put its house in

order." Yet today we have Amendments which are designed to cripple the industry in its competition with oil.

Mr. Nabarro: Rubbish.

Mr. Finch: We on this side of the Committee have said that there should be some balance between the production of oil and of coal, but there will be no balance if the Board is not in a position fairly to compete with oil. If we are to have more and more oil at the expense of coal, there will be serious economic consequences in this country, quite apart from the strategic point of view. That is what will happen unless we allow the Board to continue its capital investment policy as is outlined in the "Revised Plan for Coal".

Mr. Nabarro: Nothing in my Amendment impinges in any way on the capital investment programme. Evidently the hon. Gentleman has not done his homework during the last weekend. He has not read column 151 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of 23rd November, where my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary said with the greatest deliberation that out of the sums provided in this Bill a sum of £50 million is for the financing of undistributed stocks. I am seeking to reduce that amount by reducing the stocks, and not increasing them. I do not impinge in any way on the capital investment programme of the Coal Board or on the ability of the Board to compete with oil.

Mr. Finch: With every respect, that is what the hon. Member for Kidderminster is doing in his Amendment. The Bill before us provides for a certain amount of capital expenditure, which the hon. Member wishes to reduce. All his talk about opencast mining is not relevant to the Bill in these circumstances. Clause I provides for borrowing powers to be increased by £100 million.
I would remind hon. Members that the Board in its plan proposes to spend £511 million, of which it will raise £375 million out of its own resources. So that nearly 75 per cent. of future capital expenditure will be financed by the Board itself. Previous capital expenditure is now showing results. Let us look at the results. Productivity has gone up by 5 per cent. compared with 1958. The cost


per ton has gone down by Is. 9d. We are beginning to reap the advantages of the capital expenditure which has previously been made in the industry.
From the speeches of the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment, one would imagine that we were asking for a subsidy for the industry.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke (Dorset, South): It is.

Mr. Finch: It is not. We are asking for borrowing powers. We are not asking for any grant. We want a loan which will have to be repaid with interest. The Coal Board has already repaid to the nation loans amounting to £260 million with interest. In addition, the Board has subsidised coal imports by £70 million.
This nationalised industry has never been treated as a commercial concern. It has never been in a position to increase its prices when, according to the law of supply and demand, it should have done so. If it had been allowed to increase its price in accordance with the law of supply and demand, the price of industrial coal would have increased by £1 or £2 a ton.
It is not the nation that has subsidised the coal industry, but the coal industry that has subsidised the nation. It has given cheap coal in years gone by to industry. It has subsidised the importation of coal to the extent of £70 million. It has repaid to the nation loans to the tune of £260 million with interest. What more can the industry do in these circumstances?
Today, with increasing productivity, the output per man shift has gone up. Since nationalisation the output per man shift has increased by 30 per cent. The miners have done their duty. It is all very well to talk because the Board is in this precarious position, but when the nation wanted the coal almost at any price we had full employment in this country. Now, in face of the serious competition from oil, we are already getting the sort of criticism that we have had today. The Coal Board can with confidence put its cards on the table and be proud of what it has achieved.
What a different picture is revealed in respect of private industry. Take the aircraft and cotton industries; they are

subsidised. Look at any industry in this country. There are methods of control, and many of these industries have been controlled. Consider the money that is paid to agriculture—anything between £240 million and £300 million. That is being paid—

Mr. E. G. Willis: Given.

Mr. Finch: —year by year. Hon. Members say that there should be some accountability. I should like to know to what extent may we debate these industries which obtain money out of the public purse. The Coal Board has never had anything like that. There has been no subsidy for the Board, although there was under private enterprise. Millions of pounds were paid to the industry when it was under private ownership. In these circumstances, the industry has carried on. I know that there are faults, and I am not going to disguise the fact that there may be faults here and there, but I say at once that the Coal Board has done a great job in these difficult circumstances.
There are other aspects of this problem, and the hon. Member for Kidder-minister has referred to opencast coal. We quite agree with him. If the subject of opencast coal is to be brought into the debate, then I say that we quite agree that opencast working should be discontinued. Again, we ought to get these power stations back on to coal, and I hope that we shall get some reply from the Minister about that. I quite agree with the point made by the hon. Member for Kidderminster, but that has nothing to do with the Amendment. This Amendment will weaken the powers of the Coal Board to deal with this situation, and will weaken it in its efforts to compete with oil. That is what this Amendment seeks to do, and it has no reference at all to opencast coal. If there is to be a debate in this House on the subject of opencast coal, or on bringing the power stations back to coal, we should support such a policy, but that is not before us today.
I want to see, as I think hon. Members opposite should want to see, the Coal Board in a position to deal with this situation. Let us look at the finances of the Board, to which the hon. Member for Kidderminster referred. Let us take the


whole capital expenditure. What is it? Originally, the Board borrowed £600 million, while £400 million was obtained from the industry's own resources previously, which makes a total of £1,000 million.
Therefore, in these circumstances, I say that we have an unanswerable case on this side of the Committee in speaking for the miners and for the coal industry. I will not say for a moment that the Bill is likely to solve our problems. It is not, by any means, and we are very critical of the Government in this respect. They are not giving the industry much in this Bill. It seems that these proposals are all that we are to have, but we want something more than this. We want more assistance for the industry in these particular circumstances.
Hon. Members have referred to opencast mining and bringing back the power stations on to coal. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that one of the difficulties in this industry is due to the fact that the Government have said that they are not going to give any more assistance to the industry, but, in these circumstances, is it not in the interests of the Government to do for this industry what they have done for private enterprise when serious difficulties are confronting it?
5.15 p.m.
I repeat that this industry has a great record. It produced the coal. It delivered the goods in the years gone by. Miners have suffered the perils of this industry in order to provide the coal for the nation, but the industry has never been able to function as a commercial undertaking, and now at this moment it is essential in the interests of the country that the Government should give us some help to tide us over the present situation. The industry should be given a chance to compete with oil, but there is no response whatever from the Government.
The most we can get is this Bill, and while its provisions are essential for the industry, it does not by any means meet the position. Yet I agree with the hon. Member for Kidderminster, and wish to make it quite clear that the discontinuance of opencast mining and the changeover in the power stations from oil to coal are essential, but that is not the issue before us today. Therefore, in

these circumstances, we cannot support the Amendment.

Mr. William Teeling: I have listened with great interest to the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Finch), but, after sixteen years in this House, his speech has made me wonder if anybody remembers the past and the arguments which we used to have on coal mining subjects.
I am particularly happy to be supporting the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), because if we look back to 1956 and read the debate which took place on an Amendment which my hon. Friend then introduced, along with Mr. Angus Maude, who has now left us for Australia, we begin to wonder whether we are hearing aright today.
Are we to believe that there has been no trouble at all with the mining industry, that there was never such a thing as absenteeism in the past? Are we to believe that all this money which we have just been told the National Coal Board has spent on foreign coal being brought into this country was entirely because the miners were working very hard at the time—

Mr. Willis: A jolly sight harder than you, at any rate.

Mr. Teeling: —to get the coal which the country needed and could not produce enough? Of course not. There was plenty of absenteeism. I am speaking only for the part of the country which I represent. We have no coal mines down there, but we know that we have to help to finance this problem. We have to pay the taxes, and the business people in that area and in London, who travel back there night after night, are worried about this continuous demand for help by the mining industry, which does not seem to be able in any way to help itself.
We are told today that we have to go on more or less indefinitely, and certainly until 1965, granting these extra moneys. As my hon. Friend has pointed out very clearly, we could save part of the money which is provided in the Bill, and which the Amendment seeks to reduce. The hon. Member for Bedwellty said that he agrees with my


hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster about opencast mining, but he is not willing to support us today for the simple reason that he feels that it does not come into the Amendment. The words are clear, and indicate the amount of money which we ask to be cut off this expenditure. It does not say how it could be saved, but we believe that it can be reduced by dealing with opencast coal.
In my innocence, I wonder why the Minister does not allow stockpiled coal to be sold a little cheaper. If it were, that would help the country considerably in its export markets. My constituents and people in other areas wonder why these moneys which are being spent in this way could not be better spent in dealing with atomic energy and all the new ideas now coming forward in this country for which we need money. Why should we have to spend this money in this manner? It does not seem to me to be necessary.
I admit that it will make it more difficult to find employment for people when pits have to be closed, but, after all, that is what the Government have been returned to do. They have been returned to see whether something cannot be done to make the economy of the country work properly, and we cannot have the economy working properly if we have this endless waste going on in the mining industry. We know what the industry has done in the past, and I have probably seen perhaps as much of it as many hon. Members opposite—[Hon. MEMBERS: "0h."] Indeed I have.

Miss Margaret Herbison: The hon. Gentleman has been speaking about the shocking waste in the industry. Those of us on this side of the Committee would like to have more information about that, because if it is true we should be the first to try to do something about it.

Mr. Teeling: I hope that the hon. Lady will do as much as she possibly can about it. I should like the hon. Lady and other hon. Members opposite, after today's debate, to read some of the mining debates of the past. They would soon see that there is little doubt that more could be done and should be done.
I would also point out that what worries us considerably is that we do not seem to have the opportunity to debate this subject more frequently and ask more questions about it. An hon. Gentleman who spoke earlier said that during the General Election people asked why we could not discuss points about the nationalised industries more frequently in the House. It is so that we can in some way be able to do that that we are pressing this Amendment today.

Mr. Wyatt: The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) puzzles me somewhat. He has an enormous knowledge of the industry which he assiduously accumulates, but I cannot decide, at the end of all he says, whether he is for coal or against coal, whether he wants people to use more oil or less oil. In the end, I am forced to the conclusion that the principal object of his opposition is the Government.
Whatever the Minister of Power does, whoever he may be, he will be attacked by the hon. Member for Kidderminster, on the very understandable ground that the hon. Member is an extremely able and intelligent person who ought to be in the Government but who, for social reasons, no doubt, is not included. Consequently, the hon. Gentleman feels somewhat resentful at his position. I must say that I do not blame him. It must, I think, be very tiresome for the hon. Member for Kidderminster to see amiable and well brought up young men on the Government Front Bench above the Gangway below on which he sits when all the time he knows that he is twice as clever as they are and twice as able to do the job very much better. Yet he is excluded, on social grounds on the one side and, on the other, because he is not working-class enough to be paraded as a Tory working-class Minister.
I do not wish to detain the Committee for long, but the hon. Member for Kidderminster seems to have some of his facts wrong. He made a great case for saying that undistributed stocks would be increased at the end of this year as compared with the present level. As far as I can ascertain, all his figures are wrong. He thinks that the stocks are going up when, in fact, they are going down. The figures I have from the National Coal Board make it quite clear


that, on 12th December last year, undistributed stocks amounted to 36·483 million tons. On 9th January this year, they were 35·511 million tons and on 16th January this year they were 35·338 million tons. I think that the Minister will probably agree with those figures. Unfortunately, the hon. Member for Kidderminster, who is usually so sharp on these matters, has not read the correction slip of paper which was sent out after the original figures on which he depends were discovered to be wrong.
Stocks are now being decreased by about 250,000 tons a week. The hon. Gentleman says that that is all very fine, but, when we come to April, the stocking will begin again because the summer season starts then, and so forth. Of course, there will be a certain increase in undistributed stocks when the summer season begins, but what he does not allow for is the fact that there is already a 6 per cent. drop in production in the mining industry as compared with the same time last year, and all the time this drop is being accentuated not merely by cutting down opencast coal mining but by the regrouping schemes, closures of some pits, loss of labour, and so forth.
All the time, the tendency is not for the stocks to rise but, on the contrary, to go down. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Kidderminster is not here, because I should like to offer him £1 for every million tons of stocks above the present figure which there are at the end of this year. I do not believe that there will be any increase at all. The Coal Board is cutting down very fast in production. It is very conscious of the need and is dealing with it rapidly. If the hon. Gentleman is worried only about the fact that coal stocks may go up by the end of the year, and that is his reason for moving the Amendment, he is not on good ground. It is very unlikely that undistributed coal stocks will have gone up at all by the end of the year.
In any case, I do not understand why the Coal Board is being so much attacked on this matter. In this Committee, we find ourselves in a very odd position. Government supporters spend a great deal of their time attacking a nationalised industry which the Government are responsible for running, and we spend much of our time defending the industry

although, for ten years, we have had nothing whatever to do with it. If there is anything wrong with the Coal Board, it is absolutely and entirely the responsibility of hon. Members opposite. It is not at all the fault of the Labour Party, in spite of what the Government try to suggest.
None of the nationalised industries—this includes the Coal Board—will be run effectively and efficiently until a Minister's political reputation stands or falls with the industry's success. The political reputation of a Minister in the Conservative Government today is really enhanced if he is the Minister for a nationalised industry and he can make that industry so unpopular with the public that everyone will say, "We ought not to vote Labour, because" —so it is somehow suggested—" the Labour Party has something to do with how nationalised industries are run", while, at the same time, keeping the industry ticking over sufficiently well to meet the minimum needs of the nation. We shall not have matters put right until a Minister is responsible for what happens.
How this is to be done is something to be considered. I do not think that it is just a matter of a Minister answering Questions on Mondays and Thursdays or anything like that. He must be integrated with the industry and its affairs. Otherwise, he does not care. There is no inducement at all for a Minister to mind whether the Coal Board makes a success or not.
I defend the Coal Board on this matter of stocks. It seems to me that the Board has taken a very wise decision. It was absolutely right. It increased undistributed stocks last year by about 16 million tons of coal. If it had not done that, it would have been involved in sacking about 60,000 coal miners. If one sacks 60,000 coal miners, one has to pay each one of them half a year's earnings compensation, for a start. Moreover, one then has to give them National Insurance benefits, unemployment benefits, and so forth. This is a far more expensive operation than increasing one's undistributed stocks by 16 million tons. One has, at least, got the coal at the end of it, whereas, by the other way, one has to spend, perhaps, £50 million in the year because of the abrupt sacking of 60,000 coal miners, without having any coal at the end.

Mr. William Ainsley: And what about the men, too?

Mr. Wyatt: I shall come to that. At the moment, I am dealing with the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Kidderminster. Even on his own financial basis, he is quite wrong to criticise the Coal Board for its stocking policy, because it actually saved the nation money.

Mr. Nabarro: I do not think that the hon. Member for Bosworth has done his homework. If he has read the speech I made on this situation a few months ago, he will recall that I said perfectly clearly that 50 million tons was the maximum figure I would wish to see the stocks reach. The whole purpose of my speech this afternoon—I demonstrated the soundness of my fears in the matter —was to prevent the 50 million tons in stock becoming 75 million tons. I am not dealing in retrospect with what has happened. I am dealing with the dreadful prospect of what will happen if my right hon. Friend's figures prove to be wrong, as I believe they will.

Mr. Wyatt: I cannot go over again all my observations. The hon. Gentleman was not here at the beginning of my speech when I made some flattering references to him and advanced his cause for becoming a member of the Government, in, I thought, the most helpful terms. I pointed out, also, that he had not read the correction slip of paper issued which amended the figures upon which he depended in putting his argument about the state of undistributed coal stocks. Perhaps he has not received it because it has been lost in the post, or something like that. Anyway, he has his figures all wrong, and it is he who has not been able to do his homework.

Mr. Nabarro: The hon. Gentleman is completely wrong. I have the correction slip here. As I demonstrated this afternoon, between the 9th and 16th of this month, stocks actually increased by 173,000 times. They decreased last week, but the week before they increased.

Mr. Wyatt: It is becoming rather tedious to go over all these figures again. I know that the Minister will confirm that I am right and the hon. Gentleman is wrong. I took the trouble to make certain, and the facts of the matter—I

repeat this for the benefit of the hon. Gentleman—are that, on 9th January this year, undistributed coal stocks stood at 35·551 million tons, and on 16th January they had gone down to 35·338 million tons. That is not an increase of 173,000 tons but a decrease.

Mr. Nabarro: May I p from the Minister's own abstract of statistics? His figures are that, on 9th January, stocks were 35·838 million tons and on 16th January they were 36·011 million tons, an increase of 173,000 tons. I will give a copy of my right hon. Friend's abstract to him now.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Wyatt: The hon. Member will never listen. We listened with great interest to what he said. It was all amusingly put and very well done, but he has not got the correction slip in respect of these figures. The figures which I have given are the latest and most accurate figures. Perhaps the Minister can clear up this matter.

Mr. Nabarro: Will my right hon. Friend give us the figures?

The Minister of Power (Mr. Richard Wood): I am quite prepared to try to shorten the argument by saying that I think that the figures which the hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Wyatt) has pd are almost correct, but not entirely correct.

Mr. Nabarro: Hear, hear.

Mr. Wyatt: I may be 001 wrong, but my figures, as the Minister will agree, are almost right and the figures of the hon. Member for Kidderminster are almost wrong. That is the important point which I am trying to make, because it has a bearing on whether we are likely to have more stocks on hand at the end of the year.
I cannot, for the benefit of the hon. Member for Kidderminster, who was not present, go over all the reasons why think we are likely to have less stocks at the end of this year than at the beginning of the year. I will, however, repeat my offer to give him £1 for every 1 million tons of additional undistributed stocks at the end of this year compared with the figure for 1st January. Perhaps the hon. Member will then remember because he has a financial inducement to do so.


I should like to defend the Coal Board for its action. In the first place, it has saved itself a great deal of money in terminal payments by abruptly sacking miners, and it has saved the nation a good deal of money in National Insurance and unemployment benefits and it has an additional 16 million tons of coal at the end of it instead of nothing. Financially, it has done exactly the right thing. It has done the right thing from the social point of view of the dislocation of communities and the welfare of the miners This is not merely a question, as the hon. Member for Kidderminster rather sneeringly said, of treating the industry as a kind of welfare organisation.
As far as I know, the best run private firms take immense pains to ensure that their relations with their workpeople are conducted in such a way as to cause the minimum of dislocation, pain and hardship, because they know that in the end it is good business. If an employer has good relations with the people who work for him, he is likely to do a great deal better than if the relations between them are bad. It is not a question of running a gigantic welfare organisation but of running an industry on modern and humane lines.
In addition, the Coal Board has saved the nation a great deal in geological damage in the mines by not closing them abruptly. If the mines are closed too quickly coal may be lost for ever which could be saved by closing them more gradually. I do not know why the hon. Member for Kidderminster, with his enormous knowledge and interest, always talks of the coal industry as though it is a matter of turning a tap on and off and saying, "We shall have 10 million tons this week, 3 million tons next week and then the week after go back to 6 million tons." Changes in the coal mining industry must be brought about in a much more gradual way.
Incidentally, I think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been helped a great deal by the Coal Board having these large stocks. It means additional coal supplies are coming from stocks being run down which would have had to be produced by increased labour. Therefore, the stocks which the Coal Board holds are anti-inflationary, and

presumably it is doing what the Chancellor wants. That is another reason why the Government should support the Board rather more enthusiastically.
I agree with the hon. Member for Kidderminster about opencast coal mining. I think it absolutely absurd that the Government should not do what he suggests and cancel opencast mining contracts, even if they have to pay compensation for the lost contracts. They represent a reserve of coal which can be obtained fast if for some reason or other production has to be stepped up quickly. It is madness to go on digging up opencast coal when we do not want to start dislocating the mining industry, and dismissing miners, and so on. I know that the Ministry has cut the figure from 11 million tons to 7 million tons a year, but if it could cut it by another 5 million tons by cancelling those contracts it would be the right thing to do.
The hon. Member for Kidderminster is right about the Government's extraordinary policy in allowing power stations and prisons to go over to oil. The hon. Member put down a most surprising set of Questions. The suggestion that there is so little labour available in prisons that it is not possible to keep coal- and coke-fired boilers going seems incredible. It makes one wonder how efficient the institution called N.I.F.E. is, because it makes many odd propositions. That is one proposition which it should go back on. Here, I should declare a minor personal interest. In an endeavour to retard the number of organisations going over to oil, I have joined a firm which makes a device for saving coke on all sectional boilers. It reduces the amount of coke used in a boiler by about 25 per cent. and cuts stoking by about half.
Having said that, I now want to make one or two criticisms of the Coal Board with regard to selling and advertising. One thing which the Government must do it the present sort of situation is to be avoided is to shake up the Board in its selling and advertising. It was only a few months ago that they started to acquire some technical salesmen, but I understand that most of these people have little or no ability to sell the goods which they are supposed to sell. They have a certain amount of technical knowledge,


but the art of selling is not a matter of technicalities. A national advertising campaign has just begun which does not seem to be very widely extended or pressed to point out to large fuel users the advantages of using coal and coke as against using oil. Until the Coal Board realises that it is up to the Board itself to get into this business in the same way as the oil companies, I think that it will steadily lose ground.
The oil companies carry out the most ruthless and usually untruthful propaganda all over the country, saying that supplies of coke are disappearing, and that coal will go up in price and that it is not possible to run coal or coke installations as cheaply as oil installations. They do not mind what they say, or how hard they press the gadgets which they are offering for sale. They offer very considerable inducements, such as hire-purchase terms, to persuade people to instal oil appliances. They offer all sorts of cut-price terms for buying fuel oil, even below their own pd price. The only reason why they can do this is that the price of fuel oil is subsidised by the price which the motorist pays for his petrol. This is not a very secure foundation for the future.
I think that the Government should address themselves far more to making the Coal Board efficient in its relations with the public, in research into appliances for greater fuel efficiency and more easily handled systems of fuel installations. They should address themselves more to advertising and selling generally, and the Minister should become integrated with the Board in some way so that his reputation stands or falls with it. It is too much to ask a great political party to perform this schizophrenic act—on the one hand, pretending that it is in favour of the Board and does not want to see it collapse because it knows that it has to produce a minimum amount of coal, while knowing in its heart that the less successful the Board is and the more unpopular it becomes with the public the greater the electoral asset for the Conservative Party in the future. Until the Minister is so wrapped up with the success or failure of the nationalised industries, not one of them will be given a real chance to work.
It is time we stopped this arid argument, this "yah, boo" about nationalisation, because it is the Government who have been running the nationalised industries for nearly ten years. If there is anything wrong with them, it is nothing to do with the Labour Party. When we designed the structure of the industries, and had only about three or four years to run them, we did not decide that the system must remain inviolate for the next hundred years; and that all Conservative Governments would not touch anything in them or make them more efficient.
Until there is a great change of attitude on the part of the Government, the Coal Board is doomed to slow death— unless the Minister responsible is involved in such a way with it that if the Board does not do well he will be sacked instead of having the chairman of the Conservative Party giving him a pat on the back for seeing that coal nationalisation is unpopular with the public.

Colonel C. G. Lancaster: The hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Wyatt) seemed to make rather heavy weather of the stocks. He was saying that stocked supplies were being reduced by 250,000 tons a week. Frankly, in mid-winter, that is a very small reduction. I do not know whether he was at all interested in the coal industry before the war, but within the context of not very many more tons of production it was then always considered normal that at this time of year, and up to March. the reduction in stocks would be at the rate of 1 million tons a week. If the hon. Member puts any faith on a reduction, at this time, of 250,000 tons a week having any real impact on the undistributed stocks, he is in for a rather rude awakening.
It is very difficult for any hon. Member to question the Coal Board's consumption statistics. The Board says that consumption this year is to be at a level of 196 million tons, that it believes that production will he at a level of 195 millions tons, and that the difference of I million tons will be the difference in undistributed stocks at the end of that period. I find it very difficult to have


complete confidence in both of those figures. As I say, I cannot question the Board's consumption figure. The Board has obtained its figures from industry and by making its own inquiries. For all I know, it may be very close to the mark.
What I am by no means certain about is whether the Board can, in fact, hold production at a figure of 195 million tons. I say that advisedly. We have been tooling up this industry for a number of years now, and have poured into it £500 million or £600 million. That is beginning to have its effect. In the divisions and in the areas there are a lot of very competent men. They have been given the opportunity and the money, and today they have got the pits into a condition where they can produce a great deal of coal—a great deal more than they were able to produce a few years ago.
I find it extremely difficult to see how production can be held at a certain level. There are only two ways of doing it. The Board can put men on short time, but if it does that—bang goes its opportunity for more recruitment in those areas where it is wanted. The East Midlands is an example of more recruits
being needed —another 7,000 men are wanted there. The Board cannot put some divisions on short time and others on full time because that will not be acceptable as a whole.
If it is to try to hold the present stock at a certain level—and if I am right in saying that the industry has the ability, at the moment, to produce a great deal more coal than, I think, is generally realised—it must either put men on short time or, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) has said, considerably increase its stocks towards the end of the year. I take a much graver view of the situation than does the hon. Member for Bosworth. I believe that those stocks will go up, and that, for the reasons I have just given, the Minister will be confronted with a difficult position by July of this year.
At the same time, I do not find myself able to support the Amendment, because I think that the Minister is in very considerable difficulties. He is confronted with these stocks, with this difficult situation of increased production, and with the possibility of more

stocks. Meanwhile, he must continue with his scheme of capital expenditure on reconstruction and the like. If we start strapping him in one direction, we shall make long-term planning—and let the Committee make no mistake about it; in this industry it has to be long-term planning—almost an impossibility.
In saying that, I do not say that my hon. Friend and his supporters did not make a very powerful case—they did—but we have to look on the figure as a whole, and although it can be quite reasonably said that if we cut down on opencast coal production, if we make economies in this direction and another we should see a lower figure, it would still confront my right hon. Friend with unreasonable difficulties. Therefore, I cannot support the Amendment.
Nevertheless, we must approach this matter—and here I am with the hon. Member for Bosworth—with a recognition of the fact that a great deal could be done to sell this coal abroad. We have to recognise that it is unlikely that, at its present level of price, we shall sell any great amount of it. We have to do everything we can to see that prices within the industry come down. We should be in a position to do that now. After all, we are not spending money on importing expensive American coal; we are not spending money on keeping in being some of the more high-cost pits which recently have gone out of production. We have those two factors on our side.
Further, the industry is becoming much more competent within itself. Our methods are much better, and the time should surely be approaching when, instead of prices being at their present level, there should be some diminution. The moment we do see that diminution in price, coal, once again, becomes highly competitive, and oil, with all the advantages it may have, cannot compete so severely.
5.45 p.m.
There are a number of things that we could do with coal that are not being done at present. Let me deal for a moment with briquetting. We have spent a good deal on research, but we have not yet got very far. We have been investigating this problem since 1952. It is now 1960, and we are still playing about with carbonisation and have not yet got very


close to briquetting. Parliament will one day ask what has happened to all that money and research. It has not been effective. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend is seized of this point, but in dealing with the possibility of finding new markets I feel it right to mention briquetting. If we could produce a smokeless fuel—briquetted— there would be an immense market for it throughout the country.
I am sure that all hon. Members are conscious of the great problems with which a new Minister of Power is faced in taking over a situation fraught with all these problems and difficulties. I can give him only one ray of hope. When I was in Germany quite recently I found that the Germans, up to a month or two ago, had been confronted with something of the same proportional problem of coal stocks. I think that they had about 17 million tons of undistributed stocks as against our figure of about 35 million tons.
I found, however, that the Germans were quite confident that they would get rid of those stocks within twelve months. They said that the upsurge of industry and the demand from power stations and the like was such that the stocks would no longer present a problem. I believe that what the Germans can do we, in due course, can do—if not at that rate at least at some rate. As I say, although I have criticised the way in which we are approaching this problem, I find myself, reluctantly, unable to support the Amendment.

Miss Herbison: I had not intended to take part in the debate until I heard the speech of the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Teeling), whom I now see leaving the Chamber. What a difference between his speech and that of the hon. and gallant Member for South Fylde (Colonel Lancaster), a man with a great knowledge of the industry and a great interest in it, who has shown that there is competence in the industry at present.
When the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion was asked by me to give one example of shocking waste, he could not give one. It is that kind of propaganda that was used during the General Election, not only by the hon. Member but by other hon. Members opposite, who would consider themselves perhaps more

responsible than the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion. That propaganda was used for political reasons to return the present Government.
I am very much opposed to the Amendment. I feel that the National Coal Board must have the chance, and, indeed, should have the right, to plan ahead. In an extractive industry of this kind it is just impossible to do anything if one has to live from hand to mouth, and that is what the Amendment suggests the Coal Board should do. I feel very strongly on this matter of the Board being enabled to plan ahead. Only about three years ago the Board was advertising the great need for young men to enter the industry in every area throughout the country. Then, last year, the bomb fell and the area represented by my constituency was the worst-hit in Britain. There, because of circumstances over which it had no control, the Board had to take the unfortunate decision to close a great many pits. The greater number were closed in Scotland and this hit my constituency worst of all.
I wish that the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion, and, perhaps, the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), could see the social upheaval in that area. The Coal Board had hoped that by planning it would be able to close the pits one after the other rather than close them all at once, but because of the circumstances it could not do so. The result is that in that area alone there are 203 adult men who are not in the mining industry and who, because of very sound domestic reasons, are prevented from leaving the area. The social upheavals are very great indeed.

Mr. Nabarro: I appreciate the social upheavals, but this is a matter of mobility of mining labour, among other things. The hon. Lady will be aware that in the West Midlands division of the Board there are 1,000 vacancies today for men and a further 1,900 vacancies for youngsters in the pits and, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Fylde (Colonel Lancaster) has mentioned, there are 7,000 vacancies in the East Midlands. This is not an overall redundancy.

Mr. Willis: We do not want Scottish miners coming to England.

Mr. Nabarro: The Scots always come to England.

Miss Herbison: I know very fully the figures which the hon. Member for Kidderminster has pd, but some of these men need not have come to the East or West Midlands. They might have been found jobs in Fifeshire but for strong domestic reasons, which were recognised by the Coal Board, they were unable to move from our area. Moreover, in those areas where sudden closures have taken place young boys leaving school, who normally would have entered the mining industry, find that type of employment closed completely for them. Surely the hon. Member for Kidderminster does not suggest that these 15-year-old boys should leave their homes to come to England and take jobs in the mining industry.

Mr. A. C. Manuel: The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) should answer that.

Mr. Nabarro: I will answer it.

Miss Herbison: I am not giving way.

Mr. Nabarro: Then I cannot answer.

Miss Herbison: It was not I who asked the hon. Member to answer.

Mr. Nabarro: I apologise to the hon. Lady.

Miss Herbison: These are the social ills which come about when the Coal Board has to change its plans suddenly, and this is one of the reasons why I oppose the Amendment most strongly.
The hon. Member for Kidderminster and the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton), seemed to consider that there should be much more accountability to Members of Parliament on the part of this industry. They made very great play with that theme, because, as they suggested, the money was being given not as a subsidy to the industry but as a loan on which the industry had to pay interest. I should be interested to find the same two hon. Members coming forward with a Motion—and they can ballot for it—insisting that there should be greater accountability in the House for the steel industry—for instance, by Colvilles, which has just been given a great deal of capital by the Government at a very low rate of interest and which does not have to begin paying that interest until some time after production has started.
I hope that the hon. Members' constituents are after them on that subject, as they tell us their constituents are after them about the accountability of the coal industry. The British Motor Corporation is to carry out great developments. After some pressure it has decided to carry out part of those developments not a great distance from my constituency and part of it in Wales. The Government are to give the Corporation about £9 million in respect of these developments at a low rate of interest. Are the hon. Member for Kidderminster and his hon. Friends intending to table a Motion calling for accountability to Parliament by these companies which are considered to be private enterprises?

Mr. Nabarro: The hon. Lady will not let me reply.

Miss Herbison: If the hon. Member intends to do that, he will get the greatest support from this side of the Committee. I wait with interest to see that Motion on the Order Paper.

Mr. Nabarro: The hon. Lady will not give way.

Miss Herbison: As to stocks of coal, I was interested in the point made by the hon. and gallant Member for South Fylde about what is happening in Germany. If the Government could bring about the increase in industrial production which has taken place in Germany we might get these coal stocks used at the same rate as they are being used there. Instead, only last week the Bank Rate was increased by 1 per cent., and that increase was really meant to damp down any great interest in the country's productive activity. The Chancellor of the Exchequer must play his part, therefore, if these coal stocks are to be reduced.
The hon. Member for Kidderminster asked that opencast working should cease. We on this side of the Committee have been asking for that for a long time. I am certain that the Coal Board would be more than happy to stop opencast working were it not for the heavy compensation that it would have to pay. I have a suggestion to make to the Minister, and I hope that in it I have the support of hon. Members opposite. The Government were ready to give £30 million to the cotton industry so that it


might reorganise itself. They could give £30 million to the cotton industry, but it would be a much smaller amount that the Coal Board would need, and if the cotton industry could have the money as a grant and not as a loan, then I think hat we on this side of the Committee who are interested in the well-being of those in the mining areas—indeed, in the well-being of the whole nation—have a right to ask the Government to stop opencast work and to use a subsidy as they have in the cotton industry and give the money to the Coal Board for compensation.
6.0 p.m.
What the hon. Member for Kidderminster says his Amendment would do to stop opencast working is just nonsense, just complete nonsense. We oppose it. We hope he will take it to a Division. I remember that on a previous occasion he made a very strong statement on an Amendment to a Bill but when there was a Division upon it he had not the guts to vote for the Amendment. Some of us on this side called a Division. I was one of the Tellers, and the hon. Gentleman sat tightly in his seat. I hope that the hon. Member will have the guts today to vote for his own Amendment, if he believes in it.

Mr. Nabarro: Will the hon. Lady go away now and refer to the OFFICIAL REPORT of 10th May, 1956, when I led 25 of my hon. Friends into the Lobby against the Government, while the whole of the Socialist Party sat there without the guts of which the hon. Lady was talking?

Miss Herbison: The hon. Member is referring to a different thing altogether. I was referring to the occasion when the hon. Member made the criticisms which were backed up today by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Teeling). He had had the whole Press behind him for weeks, and there was talk about disclosures of waste and about the standards of the National Coal Board, but the hon. Member could prove none of it, and he sat in his seat when the Division was called.

Mr. Percy Browne: I rise to support the Amendment. I have no desire to hamstring the National Coal Board. I support the Amendment because we are being asked to finance the

coal stocks out of capital account. I speak as a coal merchant, and I should like to try to make a few constructive suggestions as to how we might in future sell more coal to the domestic consumer.
For a start, we in this country produce far more small coal than we do large coal. What the domestic consumer wants is large coal. Secondly, our costs are far too high. At the moment the price of coal to the domestic consumer is pd to the merchant at the price at the railway station, not at the pithead. If it is pd at the pithead, it is pd at the railway freight rate less the price which the railway charges plus a charge for people who collect it ex-landsale—which, I think hon. Members will agree does not make a lot of sense.
I believe there are two or three ways in which we can improve the position and sell more coal to the domestic consumers. Let us for a start try so to arrange mechanisation of the coal face that we produce more large coal in proportion to small coal, for it is this small coal—little better than dust, some of it —which we have in stock and are producing in greater ratio all the time as machines are worked at the pit face.
Secondly, let us try to grade our coal better. I have always regarded the end of coal rationing as a political manoeuvre, for although it lessened the paper work it did not increase the supply of large coal to the merchant, who had a real headache as a result. Let us try to grade our coal better, because even today after a fairly mild winter there is a great demand for Group 5 coal which is unobtainable. Let us try to screen our coal.
During the times I used to take my own coal round, when we sorted out the bad coal we used to find 5 cwt. of rubbish, stone, slate and clay, in a 10 ton lorryload. That was an expensive way of filling up the potholes in my yard. Some of that rubbish obviously found its way into the customers' coal sheds.
As to the price of coal pd at the station, I will give three examples of how I think we can reduce this. I was allowed to collect coal ex-landsale from a pit near Coventry. The railway rate was 18s. a ton. I collected 10 tons at a cost of 14s. 6d. a ton. To take coal


from Warwickshire pits to North Devon the railway freight rate is approximately 40s. To take china clay from North Devon to Stoke-on-Trent the railways charge 33s. although the journey is 60 miles longer. Either the one is too high or the other is too low.
Part of the reason why these freight rates are so high is that coal is zoned and arbitrary lines are drawn across the country and in one the price is x and in another it is y. I suggest that in future the price of coal, as it is for industrial use, should for domestic consumption be pd ex-pithead and the factor and the merchant should be able to make his own arrangements for transport from there. He will use the railways if he has any sense, and the freight rate will go down and the price of coal to the consumer will go down at the same time.
I believe that if we can improve the quality, and provide coal at the right price, and bring the cost down, we shall sell more coal and decrease our stocks. I am certain that if my right hon. Friend can do even some of these things we can look forward to continued prosperity in the industry and see an end to the ever-increasing stocks of coal which are such a burden to the taxpayers.

Mr. Tom Brown: I intervene only for a short time because this affords me an opportunity to reply to one of the statements which fell from the lips of the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton). I agreed wholeheartedly with the hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. P. Browne) when he said that greater care ought to be exercised in the screening of the coal which is put upon the market.
The hon. Member for Yeovil gave us an illustration brought to him by a constituent, calling his attention to the amount of foreign substance in the coal which had been sold to him. The hon. Member ought to remember that the quality of our seams in the British coal fields has deteriorated considerably during the last twenty-five to thirty years and we have now to win our coal from seams which contain a great deal of foreign substance. What I mean by "foreign substance" is non-combustible material. Way back in years gone by when I worked at the coal face—and I

have had considerable experience at the coal face—the coal seam which I worked did not contain an ounce of foreign substance. It was 4 ft. 6 in. of clean coal. Now the British coal industry has to work seams 22 in., 24 in. and 36 in. high, and in those seams there is foreign substance from six to nine inches thick.
When we are winning coal which contains such an amount of foreign substance, if we are to make our coal consumable and make it saleable, we must have perfect screening plant. That brings me to this reply to the hon. Member for Torrington. In 1947 when the mining industry became a nationalised industry 40 per cent. of the screening plant was unable to cope with the amount of coal which was produced and to make it marketable. Therefore, the National Coal Board had to spend a tremendous amount of money because of the inadequate plant which it bought is 1947. Now we have a number of hon. Gentlemen opposite trying to prevent any expenditure on improving the plant at the pithead.
That brings me to another point. It is all very well for hon. and right hon. Members of the House of Commons to say, "Do this, and prevent that; do that and prevent this". It is vastly different when we come to put such directions into operation. No industry, private or nationally owned, can produce a perfect system unless it has the money to spend on making that perfect system.
We have the unfortunate position of three or four hon. Gentlemen opposite making suggestions which I find it hard to believe can be serious. Yet their speeches indicated a note of seriousness, though it was only a small murmur. I believe that this Amendment has been put down to undermine the successful work of the National Coal Board. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] That is how it appears to me, though I may be wrong. Ever since 1947 every opportunity has been taken to have a dig at the miners. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes. I know they cloak it, but they try to make it impossible for this nationalised industry to succeed. Well, they are too late in the day.
The nationalised coal industry has succeeded, particularly from the point of view of the men. Ask any miner. I live in a mining area, I represent miners


and I have passed through every phase of the industry. I know the industry has its faults and weaknesses but it is not the only one to have them; there are a lot of faults in private industry today. It is not playing the game to try to undermine the progress made, not only in the relationship with the miners but in the relationship with the non-mining public who live in mining areas.
I am rather surprised that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Yeovil, the seconder of the Amendment, who has always been looked upon as a fair-minded man, should stoop so low as to associate himself with an Amendment of this character.

Colonel Richard H. Glyn: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to interrupt? I was interested in the point he made when he claimed that the nationalised coal industry had succeeded because it had succeeded with the men. Will the hon. Gentleman tell the Committee whether he thinks that the object of nationalising the coal industry was in the interests of the miners or of the nation?

Mr. Brown: My concern, which should be the concern of all hon. and right hon. Members of the House of Commons, is to ensure that the men working in a dangerous and dirty industry have a fair deal. That is the first essential.
6.15 p.m.
A great deal has been said about the accumulation of stocks of opencast coal When the Government submitted to the House of Commons a Bill which had for its object the continuation of opencast mining, we opposed it strongly. Ever since 1941 I have been of the firm opinion that we could manage without resorting to opencast mining if the deep mines of this country were properly organised and we had sufficient personnel to fill the face room. My hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) said that one thing which has prevented the National Coal Board from ceasing opencast mining is the heavy cost it would have to meet in breaking its contract with those who had undertaken to produce opencast coal. I would prefer the Government to pay contractors the fair compensation which they would claim for

ceasing to produce opencast coal rather than to pay for stocking it. In my judgment that would be a paying proposition.
What is happening now in the deep-mined coal areas? Opencast mining is going on. I know something about it because in the urban area of Ashton-in-Makerfield, which is in my division, 2,856,000 tons of coal have been extracted by opencast methods. Can any hon. or right hon. Gentleman opposite visualise the position in that area where 40 or 50 sites are working at once? We should have a balanced conception of what should be done, how it should be done and why it should be done.
I have strongly opposed opencast mining from the commencement, and the longer I live, the more I believe that it was a bad policy for the Government to pursue. It is all very well for hon. Members who come from non-mining areas, and so do not see at first hand the disfiguration of the countryside and the accumulation of the vast stocks. I tell the Minister that there is no prospect of the coal now accumulated in coal-mining areas ever being sold, because it is rubbish and will further deteriorate. I know from experience that some of our coal seams will stand up to the weather, but the major portion of them will not do so. So every hour of the day, every day of the week and every week of the year the coal now being stocked is deteriorating in value, and in twelve months' or two years' time no one will want it. Indeed no one wants it now, although it is of a better quality now than it will be in a few years' time. We shall not be able to sell that coal because no one will want to buy it—

Mr. Peyton: indicated assent.

Mr. Brown: I see that the hon. Gentleman agrees with me. It will not be saleable, because it will have lost its calorific value and will therefore be useless. I do not like the idea of hon. Gentlemen from non-mining areas telling the Committee, and telling us practical men, that they now propose to oppose the continuation of opencast mining. We have opposed it all along.
Why did the Government start producing opencast coal in 1940 and 1941? The former hon. Member for Harrow, West went to America and examined the


machines for opencast mining. He concluded that opencast mining would pay in the long run. Opencast mining is a crazy method of obtaining coal, and I will explain why. If there had been more reorganisation of the existing deep mines in this country, and this reorganisation had been followed with vigour and determination, the requirements of the nation would have been met without opencast mining.
We are now faced with the situation that the Government have to find money to finance the National Coal Board. This finance is necessary, not to meet the demand of £76 million by the miners which the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) mentioned, but for the National Coal Board. One must remember that an industry like the British mining industry cannot be reorganised and re-equipped without the necessary finance. I am not advocating that this money would be spent on improving the conditions of the miners, but we must ensure that we do not allow the mining industry to slide back to the condition it was in in the early 'twenties and 'thirties. God forbid that that should happen.
Reference has been made to what the Government did for the cotton industry. I should be out of order if I conducted my argument on that basis, but why should hon. Members opposite ask the Government to assist the reorganisation of the cotton industry? It is in a derelict and disorganised state and £30 million was found for the industry, yet hon. Members opposite are now trying to oppose the extension of financial aid to the British mining industry.
For the first time in 35 years a shaft has been sunk in the county near where I reside. It is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Newton (Mr. Lee). Hon. Members opposite are complaining about the money it is proposed to spend on the mining industry. When the industry was in the hands of private owners those owners should have been compelled to reorganise the industry on the lines that practical mining engineers suggested.

Mr. Ellis Smith: The Reid Report.

Mr. Brown: Yes. We are suffering now because of our attitude to the mining industry in past years.

Mr. Peyton: The House of Commons is answerable to the country and we should have the opportunity of surveying such progress as the National Coal Board is able to make.

Mr. Brown: I accept that. Because a nationalised industry run by the National Coal Board is not in keeping with the ideas of right hon. and hon. Members opposite, and because the Bill proposes to help a nationalised industry to plan ahead, they have tabled an Amendment.
I remember what was said about absenteeism. I remember what was said about the lazy Willies. I remember all the accusations that were made against the miners in 1947, 1948 and 1949. Following that period they have had an opportunity to produce great quantities of coal which has not been consumed. We are, therefore, now faced with the position that the Government are opposing further financial aid to the National Coal Board.
What would have been the position of this country during the last twelve years if the British mining industry had not been nationalised? I know that the present position does not suit the consumer, but if one goes to non-mining areas adjacent to the mining areas and asks the people whether the price of coal is too high they will quite rightly reply, "We do not care how much we pay for our coal so long as the British miner is getting a fair deal and a fair share of the price that we pay".
I now come to deal with the old story about pithead prices versus the cost of coal. It is asked why, when the pithead price is 18s. a ton, the cost to the consumer is £2 18s. The answer lies in transport costs and capital outlay. I agree that we should settle that aspect of coal production to ensure that the disparity between the pithead price and the cellar price is narrowed down so that there will be no exploitation by the retailers.
I hope that hon. Members opposite will not divide the Committee. If they do we shall vote against them, but I beg them not to do so. We should give the National Coal Board the opportunity to continue the work that it has done for the last twelve years and see to it


that the British mining industry never slips back to the condition it was in in the early 'thirties.

Mr. T. H. H. Skeet: It is extraordinary that in a debate of this kind so much criticism should be levelled against the oil industry which has contributed so much to the export of our products overseas. Those exports total about £100 million a year and are many times greater than those provided by coal.
We are today being asked to consider the allocation of a substantial sum of money to cover the cost of the stocks at present held by the National Coal Board and for a modernisation programme. A total of £511 million has been assessed by the National Coal Board to cover the plan. How much of that sum has been allocated for fundamental research? Why was that research not carried out from 1945 onwards? If, for example, the coal industry had developed a chemical industry similar to the petrochemical industry which the oil industry has devised, I do not imagine that the Committee would be troubled with an application of this sort.
6.30 p.m.
I hope that the Minister will indicate what amount of money the industry has been spending on fundamental research in the last 10 or 15 years, and how much it is likely to spend under the modernisation programme in question. Already Sir Harold Hartley has expatiated on this matter and has stated that the coal industry has a future but that it will depend upon research. I am afraid that I cannot accept the terms of the Amendment, because I consider that the industry requires all the money it has asked for. But it is no good the industry coming back in 5 or 10 years' time and asking for a great deal more; it must be given a reasonable time in which to settle down as a commercial body and become competitive.
Apparently the only argument against the oil industry is that it is too successful and competitive. Should not some plea be made on behalf of the industrial consumer? In an economy of this nature has he not the right to select the fuel he considers most appropriate for his purposes? Why should we hear arguments advocating the abrogation of con-

tracts that have been negotiated between the electricity boards and the oil companies?
Perhaps I may refresh hon. Members' memories on this matter. The oil companies were prepared to fuel a number of additional power stations. They were requested to cut down that number, and they did. If they find that their contracts are to be completely abrogated, I should like to know, first, whether they will have the right to renegotiate them, or whether the unsatisfactory position will continue interminably. Secondly, I should like to know where this process will stop once it is started. Will it be necessary for the gas industry to abrogate its contracts with Constock, and cease the importation of liquid methane from Venezuela and the United States? Will it also be necessary for the gas industry to abrogate its contract with Shell, for the utilisation of refinery gases? Are the 25 or 30 plants for the production of gas from oil in the United Kingdom to be closed overnight?
We must consider this matter in a very broad perspective. We must calculate the maximum amount of aid which should be given to the coal industry. At the same time, is it right that we should endeavour to cripple the expansion of the petroleum industry, which is serving industrial and commercial users with the fuel they require? If as hon. Gentlemen suggest, the infraction of contracts is to be allowed, let us consider another case. By 1965 it is possible that the domestic and commercial consumption of heating oils will exceed 3 million tons a year. It may even exceed the consumption of oil either by the steel industry, in open hearth furnaces, or the quantity going to the power stations. Are all people throughout industry to be told that that is the wrong form of utilisation, at a time when we have to economise in our fuel costs?
I would remind the Committee that this is a global problem. It has been experienced not only in the United Kingdom but in Western Europe, the Soviet Union, and Japan. If we find that the consumption of oil, as a percentage of total energy used, is increasing, and that the consumption of coal is falling in every one of the nations to which I have referred, it is only right that the Committee should see to it that the Coal


Board recognises the position and is persuaded to make the greatest use of the finance available to it so that it can put its own house in order as early as possible.
It is with some reluctance that I find myself unable to support the Amendment, but I appreciate the predicament in which the Minister finds himself. I have a feeling that these stocks will deteriorate in the course of a year or two and are unlikely to be assimilated as quickly as we would wish. The answer is surely that the industry should accelerate the redeployment of manpower and, like other and more dynamic industries, carry on with fundamental research at an accelerated pace. It should also adopt an entirely different attitude towards its method of selling coal in the United Kingdom and, if possible, abroad.
If a few of these recommendations were to be followed, many people in the mining valleys of England, Wales and Scotland would feel satisfied that this industry was being given the most appropriate lead by the House.

Mr. James Boyden: Many of the speeches made by hon. Members opposite have been grossly unfair to the Coal Board. The difficulty in which nationalised industries find themselves is that many of the decisions which they would like to take are taken for them by the Government, because the Government's general economic policy affects them in a major way. The main difficulty we are facing, and which has led to the Amendment being put down, is that the general Government budgetary policy has not produced the increase in production which operated for a considerable time under the Labour Government. Had production been at that level; had the Government not ben so afraid of the Prime Minister's tighrope walking and gone in for the Rake's Progress of collecting gains on the Stock Exchange, the Coal Board would have been in a much better position and would not have needed to much capital as is being made available under this Measure.
In bringing forward this loan to the Coal Board the Government cannot pat themselves on the back for their charity, because they have produced the situation which they are now trying to remedy. Even in minor ways, within their own

control at the moment, they are not doing all they can for the coal industry. Let us consider the situation in the Scandinavian countries. Poland is dumping coal there. I should have thought that the British Government's reaction would be to come to some agreement with Poland on this matter. It cannot be good for the Poles to dump coal at the price at which they are dumping it. It would be in everybody's interest to get together with them and to decide upon reasonable prices for coal in Scandinavia. I see no signs of the Government taking a lead in this respect.
As for the domestic policy within Government Departments, I am surprised that the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) should take so much credit to himself for his activities with the Prison Commission. The Home Office has been somewhat disingenuous about this use of oil. On 2nd September last, as an ordinary member of the public, I wrote to the Prison Commission and asked it what programme and policy it had with regard to oil conversion. I had heard a rumour that the heating system at Durham Prison was to be converted to oil-fired. That would have been stupid and vicious. I wanted to find out whether there was any truth in that rumour. The Prison Commission replied on 2nd October. I do not know whether there is any connection between that date and the General Election, but the letter read:
I have to inform you that there is no specific programme for converting to oil burning from steam boilers in prisons.
The rest of that letter confused rather than helped me. When I became a Member the second Question I asked of the Home Secretary—after the conventional period which one waits before making one's maiden speech—concerned this matter, and the Answer I received was the exact opposite of that given in the letter to which I have just referred. The Answer contained a list of seven prisons to be converted to oil-burning.
The hon. Member for Kidderminster has forestalled me with his questions about conversion, or improved methods of using coal in prisons. I wonder whether this was just an accident, or indicated a difference of attitude on the part of the Government before and after the election.

Mr. Nabarro: The difference of attitude on the part of the Government was related to their dealing with their own supporters on the one hand and an opponent on the other.

Mr. Boyden: Whatever the reasons, I have a shrewd suspicion, to put it no higher, that Government policy in relation to coal is not as enthusiastic as it might be. There are several ways still within the Government's power to put more support behind the industry. For example, the Central Office of Information could use its energies and activities in support of the Coal Board's publicity campaign concerning some of the excellent ways in which coal can be used. The Ford Company at Dagenham has one of the most efficient steam raising plants in the country, using pulverised coal. I know that the activities of the Coal Board will bring this idea much more before the public, but I cannot help thinking that the Government could be much more helpful than they have been.
I believe that the Board can produce pitch oil which burns in almost exactly the same way as fuel oil. I believe that it will be no different from fuel oil in the matter of efficiency and economy. But I have seen nothing about it in any publications. In matters of research which have been referred to, I should have thought that the Government, through their various research organisations, could have co-operated with the Board's research laboratories and together have produced results which would be beneficial to our economy.
The real difficulty is that the Government speak with different voices in different Departments. What we need is a general drive for more productivity, in the way which the Labour Party put forward its case before the election, associated with the maximum use of coal within Government Departments. At the same time, maximum publicity should be given to the improved, efficient uses of coal which the Board has been developing, It is unfair to blame the Board for a sudden change in economic policy, and also for decisions which it has to take under the general direction of the Government.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I want to refer only to two points—the attitude of the Labour Party to the Amendment,

and the question of opencast coal. One of the things which my constituents and I—who are entirely consumers of coal—have noticed in the years since nationalisation is the selfish syndicalism which has been produced. To some extent it could be said that the Ministry of Fuel and Power in the past, the Ministry of Power now, the mining fraternity and the Coal Board have formed a strong coalescence to defend the interests of miners, come what may.
Associated with the coal industry, but not with the other nationalised industries, has been a very powerful miners' lobby in the House. This selfish syndicalism, which has been very marked in the past and was at times considered to be extremely ugly, is now associated with a kind of touchiness and worrying which still ill becomes members of the Labour Party who have associated themselves with it.
From the country's point of view the mining position is now very strong. There are large stocks of coal, and enormous quantities of oil are coming in. If at any time the representatives of the mining community thought that they had the country by the short hairs—and I do not say they did—they do not think so now.
6.45 p.m.
A very different situation prevails today. That being the case, it seems to me remarkable that the Labour Party is still showing this extraordinary touchiness about a moderate Amendment of this kind. The hon. Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) and other hon. Members opposite have practically accused us of moving a wrecking Amendment which is designed to bring the whole re-equipment of the Coal Board to an end. It would have been perfectly easy to have produced such an Amendment.
We could have voted against the Bill on Second Reading, and, had we been successful, it would have brought the Board up sharply against the fact that, ultimately, the borrowing power of £650 million per year would have come to an end in August, 1961. We did no such thing. It would have forced the Board into a position of drastic reorganisation to make sure it could provide from within its own resources—if necessary by increasing the price of coal—the means of carrying on with its re-equipment programme.


Our Amendment does nothing of the kind. It is designed—as successive Amendments moved from this side of the Committee, looking back for nearly ten years, have been designed—to produce a coal debate once a year, and no more than that. My hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) was quite right when he said that the House and the Government are bankers to the nationalised industries. If, when I was in a state of overdraft, my banker were to write to me once a year and say, "Your overdraft is such-and-such. Please come and have a debate about it." I should be very pleased indeed, but he does nothing of the kind. He says, "Reorganise your circumstances—or else!"
By this Amendment we are doing no more to my right hon. Friend the Minister and his Department than to require them today, and, we hope, in about a year's time, to have another debate. Why should not we be entitled to have a debate and to look into the situation that obtains in the coal industry and the other nationalised industries?

Mr. Finch: Millions of pounds are being poured into private industry.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Hon. Members opposite are all too inclined to take the view adopted by the present Lord Morrison of Lambeth when the nationalised industries were set up and made accountable to Parliament. He said that it would do if Parliament looked at their affairs once in seven years. Will it do if we look at their affairs once in two years, while most of them are incurring increasing losses year by year?
As the bankers to these nationalised industries we have the right to require them to adopt certain tactics, certain approaches, certain methods of reorganisation which ultimately, we hope, will bring them into the position, laid down by Statute by the party opposite, that they should break even taking one year with another. That is all that this Amendment is designed to do, to try to meet the suggestion made just now by my hon. Friends. One has to consider the distribution of coal stocks, research in coal, and things of that kind and more concrete suggestions about how the industry is to be reorganised.
The other point I wish to raise concerns opencast coal. I do not understand the attitude of the Government about this. I share the view of the party opposite. I cannot see why opencast coal operations cannot be drastically curtailed and brought to an end, as my hon. Friend wants them brought to an end, except for a very small amount of production, within a year or so. I hope that the Minister is able to justify these enormous stocks of coal on the surface today—if he is not going to be so kind as to alter completely the line of policy which he has been pursuing in the last few months—as being ample fuel resources available in any emergency. Will he say that he fears another oil crisis and that we must have these stocks doubled up in the next two years? What is the justification for this large amount of public money being locked up in these increasing stocks? I hope that the Minister will pay particular attention to what has been said about this matter by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee. We feel as strongly about this as about the financing.
I come back to the first point. We have now arrived at a state of affairs—I speak politically about this—where the flaccidity which has characterised the financing of the nationalised industries—not only coal, but all the other industries—since the end of the war must be looked into thoroughly by the Government. We cannot go on year after year finding enormous amounts of the taxpayers' money—

Mr. Roy Mason: What about private enterprise?

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: The hon. Gentleman may have heard me on the subject of subsidies to private enterprise during the weeks before the Christmas Recess. If not, he will certainly hear me next week, when we discuss the Local Employment Bill. I feel as strongly about that as about the provision of enormous subsidies to the nationalised industries.
Surely these great commercial concerns, which were meant to be great commercial concerns standing on their own feet, and told to do so by Statute, should now be required to do so by the third successful Tory Government since the war.

Mr. William Hamilton: If the purpose of the Amendment were that alleged by the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) one would not complain too much about it. Indeed, one of the main purposes in nationalising all these industries was precisely to make them publicly accountable, and that is what we are trying to do. But neither hon. Members on this side of the Committee nor, I suspect, most hon. Members opposite, believe that that was the intention when this Amendment was put down. The debate has been remarkable because of the relatively few speeches from hon. Members opposite in support of the Amendment, because they know what is the purpose. It is to denigrate this great industry.
There are three problems which are posed by the Amendment in conjunction with the Bill as a whole. The first is the question of public accountability. No one on this side of the Committee would object to debates being held three, four, five or six times a year on each of these industries. I would that we had the time to have such debates, but the Government have prevented that. We had a week extra on the Christmas Recess which we could have used to hold five debates on the nationalised industries, so that there is no difference between us about accountability.
I should like to draw the attention of the noble Lord to the fact that there is no public accountability for the —250 million which goes to the industry that he supports and represents in this House —the farming industry—which gets its entire wages bill provided out of the public purse with no accountability at all. In debates on Scottish agriculture I have said that the Scottish farmers get more out of the public purse than they pay out in their entire wages Bill. The noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South does not say, "Let us have four or five debates per year on the agriculture subsidies." So on the question of public accountability we have no objection whatever.
The two more important points concern the purpose of the Bill. The prime purpose is the financing of the stocks, and the second is the financing of the long-term capital investment programme of the Coal Board. Parliament has decided. I think very rightly, that it is

infinitely preferable to spend public money on the financing of stocks rather than that the industry should cut down drastically and suddenly, with all the evil social consequences that would flow from so doing. In other words, we are saying that in terms of — s. d. it is well worth the public while spending millions in preventing the social chaos and misery which would result from what is, after all, the effect of the Government's own policy of industrial stagnation. The House of Commons decided to spend that money to reduce—not entirely to eliminate, but to reduce—the social and economic hardship would would flow from a sudden cut-down in production.
One would accept that policy if we were quite certain that there was some prospect of these stocks being reduced in the foreseeable future. But one does not know. The Coal Board does not know and I am certain that no one else knows. It depends entirely on the future demand for coal. Anyone in the Coal Board will say that it is impossible to foresee future demand for coal, certainly not over the next few years and possibly not even for the next twelve months. Forecasts can be made, they have been made before, and probably they will be wrong one way or the other.
The investment plan of the industry, its demands for capital, must be flexible and subject to amendment. This is inevitable and the difficulties are increased precisely because this investment programme must be flexible for an industry which basically is inflexible. That is the problem. On the question of stocks and whether they can be disposed of we are unable to give an answer. I challenge my hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) on whether there is a great decrease in the calorific content of the coal lying on the ground. So far as I know, there is no certain scientific evidence on this point at all, but I consider that a minor point. The question is, can the stocks be disposed of?
I think they can if during the difficult transition period through which the Coal Board is now going the Board is given a modicum of the help that private industry gets. The cotton industry is getting that help, the aircraft industry is getting it, every private industry is stuffing its maw from the public purse


and the Government are not batting an eyelid. One does not object if the industry is to be made more competitive in this competitive world. But what applies to private industry should apply equally to the nationalised industries. All we ask is that the industry should be given help in the transition period in order to make itself competitive; that is all.
Again I say that there is no economic evidence, no statistical evidence, to show that coal cannot compete with oil. I would go further and say that it can more than compete with oil if we take into account certain facts which are sometimes ignored. Shortly before the General Election I went to Aden. There the British Forces are living in absolutely appalling conditions. I went into one of those hirings where an Army sergeant was living. His child aged nine had never had a day at school because there was no school provided in Aden by this Government. Had the child been in this country the parents, or the education authority concerned, would have been brought to the courts.
Why do I refer to this? I am not getting wide of the Amendment—

Mr. Jack Jones: It is because of the oil there.

Mr. Hamilton: Precisely. It is because in Aden, and right along the Persian Gulf to Bahrein, millions of public money is being used to subsidise the oil coming into this country. That sergeant and his child represent the price which is being paid for the oil. Not a penny of such public money is provided for coal in this country. The coal industry is competing against that kind of thing.
7.0 p.m.
Even so, as we keep reminding hon. Members opposite, the price of coal in this country is 30s. a ton less than it is in Western Europe. When hon. Members opposite suggest that the National Coal Board should bring its prices down, I ask them what has been the reaction of firms in private industry to the Chancellor's request that they should bring their prices down? The National Coal Board might have been in a position to bring its prices down if it had had complete freedom to put them up at a time when it could easily have done so.

Mr. P. Browne: The hon. Member looked at me when he made that remark. What I said was that if we reduced the freight charges we could reduce the price of coal. The price at pithead is perfectly fair.

Mr. Hamilton: I was referring to the hon. Member and to his hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Teeling) who showed an equal ignorance of the industry. It is not well known to the London housewife that 10s. of every £1 which she pays for coal has nothing to do with the miner. To that extent I agree with the hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. P. Browne) in his comment on freight and distribution. He is in the distributive trade, and I say to him that freight and distribution, particularly the latter, are in a chaotic state in this country and need rationalisation to cut margins in distribution and in freight charges.

Mr. Skeet: Is the hon. Member aware that there are also freight and distribution charges on oil from the Persian Gulf?

Mr. Hamilton: I also realise that the public money which we are spending to protect those interests is not shown in the price of oil in this country.
I doubt very much whether the National Coal Board will be able to reduce its prices in the near future, but I see no reason why it should not do so in the long run if it gets over this transitional period. If it does so, we shall be able to claim some credit for putting this industry on a rational basis, based on the public good. I think that we can get rid of the stocks if the industry is given sufficient time to get over this difficult period.
Turning to the capital investment side of the problem, the Government are in a difficult position in that they have to accept figures based on highly technical considerations which the Minister is in no position to question. I do not know whether the Coal Board's investment programme is based on sound factors, nor does the Minister. We must rely on the technical experts in the coal industry If they have to amend the programme, the Minister will again be in their hands and will have to accept their amendment. This is part and parcel of the problems of a highly technical industry.


To that extent, and if the purpose of the Amendment is to urge that we should debate the matter periodically in the House, I have no objection to it. But that is not its purpose. Its purpose is simply to lambast the nationalised industry. A week ago the Parliamentary Secretary was in my constituency going round the pits, and he was asked by a newspaper man whether he had left the industry because it was nationalised. He replied, "Yes, of course I did." Thus, we have Ministers in control of the industry who do not believe in the fundamental principle of public ownership. I suspect that this comment also applies to the Minister. He would not be in the Tory Party if it did not.
That is the dilemma. It is the equivalent of a Labour Minister being Secretary of State for War. One position in a Labour Government which it should be easy to get is that of Secretary of State for War, because nobody on this side likes it. We have had one Minister of Fuel after another, in Conservative Governments, and I do not think that the present Minister will be in office for long.
The dilemma is that we have Ministers who are administering an industry in which they do not believe. They have to come to the Box to support something in which they do not believe. The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) knows that. He is wondering how he can get into office. We shall be interested to see whether he carries his Amendment to a Division. I doubt very much whether he will. It will be like all his Purchase Tax Amendments to the Budget. He shouts and squeals and roars, but when the Division occurs he remains in his seat. If he carries this Amendment to a Division, we shall be interested to see how many of his colleagues believe that the intentions behind the Amendment are those which he and some of his hon. Friends have alleged.

Mr. John McKay: I wish for a few minutes to express some thoughts on the subject of finance, particularly in relation to the mining industry. When I examine what the Government do, not only to the mining industry but also to many other industries. it seems to me to be a very peculiar financial

system. The more profit that some industries are making and the bigger they are, the greater the relief they get.
The mining industry is in great financial difficulty, but it is trying to develop itself into a commercial unit which will require no assistance. This industry is essential to the country, because if it were allowed to die through an inability to get finance, it would be a serious matter for the nation.
Last year over £400 million was given in subsidies, virtually as free gifts. Big industries, making large profits, received special reliefs through investment and initial allowances amounting, for the public companies, to —362 million last year. They are making large profits and yet they are given this relief.
The mining industry needs money for many years in order that it may get out of an uneconomic position. It is essential, for the good of the nation, that it should be reorganised so that more coal can be brought to the surface. The noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) talked about the mining industry becoming syndicalist and working as a unit for its own good.
We are considering an industry which had been nicking no profit and had been getting no assistance from the nation, and in which the conditions of work were for years a disgrace to the nation. It has been necessary to provide encouragement and finance to the industry in order to bring coal to the surface for the good of the nation. Can we expect any other than that the men in the industry will fight for improved conditions? If that is what the noble Lord means by syndicalism, we shall see it throughout the country.
Hon. Members have been speaking of the financial arrangements in the Bill as if we are making a gift to the miners. The fact is that throughout the whole period of nationalisation not —1 has been handed to the coal industry as a gift. Hon. Members talk of the amount of money provided for this industry, but the Government have merely been acting as moneylenders to the mining industry. Everyone knows that a moneylender is out to help himself through the money that he lends. That is the position in the mining industry.
What can I say to the Government to make the case for the National Coal Board that it should be helped not


simply by means of a loan from a moneylender? It should be helped because of the work which was done during the last critical period when we could not get sufficient coal for the nation's needs. Did not the miners try, not only individually but as a body, to help the nation in its dire need for coal? Of course they did. After many years, the miners at last had the opportunity to take two weeks annual holiday, but they decided to forgo the extra week's holiday and to spend it working in the mine. Instead of the five-day week to which they were entitled, we asked them to work an additional day per week for the good of the nation, and they did.
What would be the attitude of the electorate if they knew that millions of pounds had been given to other industries as absolute gifts, by means of special taxation reliefs to some of the most profitable companies in the country? These are not companies which are having a great struggle. These reliefs were given because we want more investment. We said, "Increase investment and bring the industry into a better state, and we will make you a gift through legislation". Companies can obtain this special taxation relief only if they make large profits. If an industry is in the same position as the mining industry, making no profit, it receives nothing.
7.15 p.m.
The "Father Christmas" attitude adopted by the Government to many industries in this country and its tightfisted, moneylender attitude to the mining industry does not bear investigation. Some people have asked what the mining industry has been doing about research. One cannot imagine the industry worrying itself very much about research during a period when it is being told to keep on producing coal and it is costing a loss of £1, £2, £3, and £4 a ton at some collieries. What is the research needed in an industry in which the commodity produced faces a great market which it cannot fulfil? The main thing needed then is to introduce the ways and means, not on a long-term basis but as quickly as possible, to get something done to produce more goods.
The chief research made by the miners when they were sacrificing themselves to help the nation in its difficulty was how

to get the pits modernised and to introduce machinery so that the men could produce more coal. For many years they have been gradually working up to that aim. Just as they are getting on top of the problem, a mighty change in coal demand takes place. So great is the change and so speedily does it come upon the industry that there is no time to meet it and organise the manpower without causing tremendous unemployment. The Government, as well as the miners, have been trying to help. Now in a critical period, after the miners have done everything possible to help the nation, when they face difficulties as an industry the Government to all intents and purpose are not doing very much to help. They lend the industry money, but the industry must pay all the capital back and the interest involved places further burdens on the industry. Last year £32 million were paid in interest charges. Under the Bill that interest liability is being increased. It is not a gift. It is a business, as hon. Members opposite continually point out. It is a commercial transaction by the Government with the mining industry.
I hope that, despite all that has been done, influences will be at work during the next few months to make the Government consider the question of opencast mining and whether they can take some steps to show their gratitude to the minors who did everything possible during many critical years to help the nation, The Government should consider carefully whether they ought not to give voice to the spirit of the people. The spirit of the nation is to help the miners in this critical period just as the miners helped the nation's industries for many years. That would mean helping not as a moneylender, but as a friend.
The Government should say to the industry, "Here is some help. We know what you have done in the past and recognise that you need help for the future, not for your own good but for the good of the nation as a whole". The Government should make a radical psychological change in their attitude to the mining industry in the very near future so that their offers of help have a genuine ring. At the same time as the Government are helping so many people by special relief, taxation relief and subsidies, they should say with sincerity, "Yes, and we intend to help the mining industry".

Mr. Jack Jones: I have listened carefully to what has been said by hon. Members opposite. During all the fifteen or sixteen years in which I have been a Member of the House of Commons I have never been so convinced as I have today of the blatant hypocrisy of the whole of the argument put forward. The kidder of the Ministers, the hon. Member for Kidder-minister (Mr. Nabarro), does not kid us on this side that he intends to take us into the Division Lobby. He has been waiting for some considerable time—let us be blunt and honest about it —to have his say-so about the mining industry and the situation it is in today.
There is a very simple solution to all this. The Tory Party could have put the mining industry back into private ownership nine years ago. Of course, it did not intend to take back the mining industry as it had taken back road transport and part of the steel industry. It knew that mining was doomed. It knew at that time that it was doomed because of the condition it was in. It was not the Socialists in power that put the industry in the condition in which we found it.
Let us get down to brass tacks. When the war was over we brought coal and steel from America and Europe so that we could have full employment in this country. Incidentally, we paid for the steel with our copper reserves left after the war which had been dug by the Rhodesian miners in the Copperbelt. That is incidental, but it is worth mentioning. The mines were derelict. The guts had been taken out of them.
Today, we must decide whether to stockpile coal for the time being or stockpile human misery. The Tory Party is not concerned with human misery. If it were, history as it has been written would show how inept it has been in dealing with it. There would be whole villages derelict, with men back on the streets. We do not want that situation to develop in Britain any more. It is all very well for the Minister and the hon. Member for Kidderminster to blame the industry. Every ton of coal mined today does not carry with it the cost of its being mined and the cost of its being transported to the housewife.
We know that some of the coal is bad stuff. The good stuff has gone. It was taken out by those who owned and controlled the pits in past years. The cost of the new shafts, of all the new machinery, of modernisation and of importing coal to meet full employment have all had to be merged into the present day selling price of coal.
There is one thing about the coal now. Whatever else it has amongst it, there is not so much blood on it as there used to be, thank God.

Lieut.-Colonel W. H. Bromley-Davenport: Oh.

Mr. Jones: The hon. and gallant Gentleman can say "Oh", but it is true. He should look at the accident statistics and think of those who were killed in the industry. He says "Oh", but I stand in awe of the figures as they used to be. People stood in awe then at the blood which was on the coal when you folk owned and controlled it. I say what I mean.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. W. R. Williams): Order.

Mr. Jones: I am sorry, Mr. Williams. I was carried away.

The Temporary Chairman: Order. I do not think that I am involved in this.

Mr. Jones: I referred to hon. Members opposite. The occupant of the Chair would be the last person in the world whom I should accuse of anything like blooding.
Today, the mining industry, through its Control Board, is talking about a loan of money, not from the Tory Party, not from any private owners of money or controllers of money, but from the State, which owns the coal and has a right to use it for its future benefit. It is all very well for hon. Members opposite to talk of the pickle which the industry is in. Someone should ask how it got into that condition. What the Coal Board is asking for is a loan of the nation's money, its own money. One cannot go wrong if one is paying money into something State owned and controlled. I hear stories about my industry, which I know a bit about. No one is crying about that State portion of it which recently announced £2 million net profit. That is one company which has not been sold.


All that the Amendment seeks is to halve the amount of the loan. If someone on this side had tabled an Amendment to halve the amount of the pig subsidy, the cereal subsidy, the calf subsidy, or any other subsidy which the farmers must have to bring about an improvement in the food situation and to stop the importation of food there would be loud cries from hon. Members opposite. The coal industry needed money to modernise to stop the importation of coal. This is a piece of political trickery and nothing else. During the election campaign and since, in my own constituency, I saw good Barnsley seam coal, some of the best in Britain, being hauled to the surface and stockpiled. Within two hundred yards furnaces where I once worked as a boy were being fed with foreign oil, which comes from places mentioned earlier by the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. W. Hamilton). It is costing the nation millions of pounds to defend the oil interests.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newton (Mr. Lee), who will be winding up the debate on behalf of my party, will remember when he and I went to Persia. Ninety-one thousand men were on strike. Thousands of oil workers were living on the desert in atrocious conditions. They were badly paid oil workers producing oil which is now being exploited by this Government to denigrate and further a policy which is helping to create an argument to be used by the hon. Member for Kidderminster and others. I know that the hon. Gentleman is efficient in talking about the efficient use of coal. It is a wonderful thing when we have to get to 1958, 1959 and 1960 before efficient Tory members adopt such an attitude.
I give the hon. Member for Kidderminster his due. He knows what he is talking about when he talks about technical equipment for power stations, etc. He does very well out of the provision of articles which they use. He does not do so badly out of it. He did so well that two or three years ago he was able to buy up the Minister of Labour's own house.

Mr. Nabarro: On a point of order. I think that a personal statement is called for. I have never bought a house from the Minister of Labour. The hon. Gentleman is prevaricating.

Mr. Jones: What I said was the then Minister.

The Temporary Chairman: I think that we should get back to the Bill. We are not interested in anything else.

Mr. Jones: I withdraw that statement. What I said was this, and I repeat it. If it was not the house of the present Minister of Labour, it was some other Minister. The hon. Gentleman does not do so badly out of the provision of articles for power stations, and so on. I shall not withdraw that.

Mr. Nabarro: On a point of order. This is developing into a very serious matter. Another personal statement is called for. I am not privately connected with the provision of equipment to any of the nationalised fuel and power industries, including electrical power stations. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman, who is making these wild allegations, will now withdraw his statement.

The Temporary Chairman: Order. As soon as we depart from strict order we run into difficulties. I must now appeal to the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones) to confine himself to matters arising directly from the Clause.

Mr. Jones: I withdraw every word and go back—if it suits the hon. Member—to where I said that he was efficient in his knowledge of supplying goods to power stations.

Mr. Nabarro: I accept the apology.

Mr. Jones: I thank the hon. Gentleman very much.
advocating that for a long time. Many of us have been advocating doing away with Saturday morning work in the coalfields, despite the fact, as will be remembered, that I got into serious trouble for a long time with my mining colleagues when I advocated Saturday morning work to get sufficient coal to meet the then needs of full employment.


7.30 p.m.
The facts in this case are very simple. Here we have a Board controlling a nationalised industry which requires to continue to modernise so that it can meet the competition which has sprung primarily from oil. At one time the steel industry used millions of tons of coal a week. Today, it is using oil. I can mention the names of some companies. There is one in my constituency which is now going over from oil to electricity completely. I hope that as that industry is modernised and improved, electricity will be generated from coal which is now stockpiled.
Those who vote for the Amendment will be denying a publicly-owned State industry sufficient money to modernise and make itself an asset to the nation, rather than a debit as it was under the Tories.

Mr. Frederick Lee: If it is the will of the Committee that we should continue the debate there is nothing to prevent hon. Members from doing so. In the same way, there is no reason why I should not contribute to the debate at this point.
The noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) was very much barking up the wrong tree when accusing my hon. Friends of revealing some type of selfish syndicalism He implied that the attitude of miners was determined on a pure issue of their economic power and that they had put the screw on the nation during that time when coal was very scarce. He suggested that we must now understand that the economics of the situation had changed and that power had passed to others, leaving the miners in a relatively weak position.
Looking back on the days when we were very short of coal, I cannot see how anyone can justly say that the policy of the miners was determined by economic power. At that time, the nation was very short of coal and the miners could have had almost anything they demanded. What did they demand? It could be argued that half of the employees of the National Coal Board now get less than the average wage of manual workers. Does that sound like policies determined by getting the country by the throat? Does it sound

like the miners demanding their pound of flesh? Of course it does not.
The noble Lord was completely wrong in that as he was in saying that we were now trying to defend an industry which, he told us, we wished to cushion. He suggested that we were trying to prevent him and his hon. Friends from debating the coal industry. The fact is that we have had many debates on the coal industry in the last two years. Speaking "off the cuff", I should have thought that at least half those debates were initiated in Opposition time; in other words, we sacrificed time from our own allocation to give hon. Members opposite, as well as ourselves, an opportunity to discuss the affairs of the National Coal Board. Does that sound as though we have been trying to keep an industry which is inefficient away from the shafts of light which emanate from the benches opposite? I should have thought that entirely the reverse was the case.
It is not our view that the Board is controlling an inefficient industry. As a matter of fact, it is controlling one of the most highly efficient coal industries in the world. Comparing price with price, the Board is producing the cheapest coal in Europe. Comparing output per man-shift, it has the best record in Europe. Those are the criteria on which to judge the efficiency of an industry and on all of them the noble Lord is completely wrong in assuming that we are trying to defend an inefficient industry.
The difficulty of the coal industry is that up to three years ago the nation was demanding coal at almost any price—whether economic or uneconomic, coal must be got—and during that period the Board's customers were being forced to convert to oil, despite the economics of oil versus coal. That is the situation which the Board now faces at a time when, as the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) reminded us, the world as a whole has a coal glut. That is the aspect of the matter with which my hon. Friends have been concerned.
The hon. Member for Kidderminster asked whether the coal industry was to be run as a social service. He said that if it was, then a subsidy was justified, but that, if it was not, then a subsidy was not justified. I hope that he will be consistent in all this, and I hope that the


party opposite will be consistent, too. If the hon. Member says that an industry which is not run as a social service should not have a subsidy, will he apply that to industry generally, to agriculture, horticulture, the aircraft industry?
In that argument, the hon. Member is on dangerous ground. I accept his criteria, but I see nothing wrong in any industry, nationalised or privately owned, trying to insure the social betterment of its employees. Surely that is one of the things about which we are all agreed. Surely we all agree that productivity in the last analysis depends upon a proper atmosphere within an industry. I should have thought that the Board was trying to fulfil what is the duty of any good employer these days.
I agree that the hon. Member has a point when he says that we should examine the sums being loaned to the Board, but I would very willingly go all the way with the hon. Member on that if he would say that instead of the Government lending the Board money on the terms of the Bill, they should lend money on the terms and conditions on which they lend money to private enterprise.
Would the hon. Member say that the conditions on which the Coal Board is getting loans are comparable with the gifts and doles given to the cotton industry? Let us consider the case of steel. Some time ago there was an agreement with Colvilles. One of the heads of that agreement, No. 6, said:
The payment of interest (hereinafter referred to as 'the postponed interest') on each tranche of the loan which accrues up to the date on which works commence hot strip production (the construction period) will be postponed and will be subject to interest at the same rate as that tranche and payable at the same date and on the same terms as that tranche.
In other words, all payment is waived until Colvilles actually begin to produce steel.
If the Minister would like to change the terms for the Coal Board's borrowing to those of the Colville agreement, I think that my hon. Friends could be induced to accept such a change, but I doubt whether we will find that the Government are prepared to treat the Board in quite that way.
The Minister told us on the Second Reading:
The Bill which, in itself, is very simple … is inseparably connected with the Coal Board's 'Revised Plan for Coal' for which plan the Bill aims to provide the finance."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd November. 1959; Vol. 614, c. 42.]
In other words, the Minister was telling us that the Bill is to enable the Coal Board itself to finance the "Revised Plan for Coal" and that it is not, therefore, in order to enable the Coal Board to finance the provision of the coal stocks to which the hon. Gentleman has referred.

Mr. Nabarro: If the hon. Gentleman will turn to column 151 of the OFFICIAL REPORT he will see that the Parliamentary Secretary said perfectly clearly that out of the provision of finance by this Bill the financing of undistributed stocks is £50 million.

Mr. Lee: It is not part of my speech to try to bring together the contradictory statements of members of the Government. I am quoting the opening statement of the Minister of Power.
The right hon. Gentleman went on to cover the question of the Order. The Order was also discussed, as the hon. Gentleman will remember, on the Second Reading of the Bill, and the Minister pointed out that the Order was the basis on which they would raise the money to finance the stocks of coal. In other words, we are now discussing not the Order at all; we are discussing the Committee stage of a Bill which, to p the right hon. Gentleman:
is inseparably connected with the Coal Board's 'Revised Plan for Coal' for which plan the Bill aims to provide the finance.
That is the position. How, then, does it come about that the supporters of the Amendment argue that the Amendment will assist in any way, either in the lifting of stocks or in the greater efficiency of the working of the National Coal Board? What the Amendment will do is to put back the fulfilment of the Coal Board's "Revised Plan for Coal". That will be the effect and no other. Hon. Members who feel that they can support the Amendment are not, in fact, doing anything at all about stocks; they are deliberately retarding the efforts of the Coal Board further to modernise the coal industry.


To quote right hon. Gentleman when he spoke about the Order, he said:
I wish to make it quite clear … that the main reason that the Board wishes to have this higher limit for its annual borrowing this year, just as there was last year when there was another of these Orders, is the need it has to finance the present level of undistributed
stocks."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd November, 1959; Vol. 614, c. 44.]
The Order we then discussed was for that specific purpose. We are not today discussing the Order at all; we are discussing Amendments on the Committee stage of the Bill itself, and I submit that there is no point in the hon. Member for Kidderminster and his hon. Friends arguing that in doing this they are showing concern about the growing large amount of stocks now in the country and trying in some way to help in finding methods by which those stocks can be used.
7.45 p.m.
Again, the hon. Member for Kidderminster is very concerned, and, the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South said the same thing, at repeated loans coming from Government sources to nationalised industry. I did not notice that the hon. Member for Kidderminster or any other hen. Member opposite objected very much when the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Power, on the last day on which the House sat before the Christmas Recess, told the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Sir S. Summers) that he was increasing the borrowing powers of Messrs. Richard Thomas and Baldwin Ltd., which has an agreement with the Minister of Power by which it can borrow £60 million. The Minister has now agreed to increase that borrowing power to £70 million.

Mr. Nabarro: It is to be denationalised at any moment.

Mr. Lee: The hon. Member should not have said that. The reason why the hon. Member does not object to an increase in the borrowing power of a nationalised steel corporation is because it is to be denationalised at any moment. Therefore, the loans to a nationalised concern are one of the pickings which the private enterprise people will get when they take over Messrs. Richard Thomas and Baldwin Limited. I am grateful for the assistance of the hon. Member.

Mr. Nabarro: The hon. Gentleman was evidently not in his place yesterday when I pressed the Chancellor of the Exchequer to get on with the completion of the denationalisation of steel. That is all part of the argument.

Mr. Lee: That does not answer my point. The hon. Member today has argued a point of very great principle, as has the noble Lord— that we really cannot have this increasing use of the Treasury to finance nationalised sectors of industry, and so on. It is on that great principle that St. George and his associates have been charging into the back of their right hon. Friend. Why do not they object? Messrs. Richard Thomas and Baldwin is at this moment a nationalised sector of the steel industry. The right hon. Gentleman has agreed to increase the public money which it is borrowing. Does not the hon. Member feel any desire to come to the attack on that issue? We know the reasons—he has told us—that it will be a further incentive for private speculators to casl in on the fine achievements of Messrs, Richard Thomas and Baldwin as a going concern.
On the advocacy of the hon. Gentleman for the speedy ending of opencast mining and his support that the power stations should go over to coal burning, if these two issues were relevant to the Amendment he moved we would support them to a man, but, as I have shown, they have not the slightest relevance at all to the issues of the Amendment.
I want to refer to what the Parliamentary Secretary said, which is relevant to what the hon. Member said, about oil burning in power stations. On Second Reading, I asked him to qualify the remarks of the Home Secretary, in the Gracious Speech debates, when he told us that improvements would be made in the burning of coal in power stations. The Parliamentary Secretary replied:
Two big power stations which are designed to burn oil will now burn coal. These are Northfleet and West Thurrock One conversion from coal to oil will not take place; that is a part of Portishead B. Two conversions to oil have been postponed, at Littlebrook B and Brunswick Wharf.
What is meant by postponed? Can we have an assurance that these two stations will, in fact, burn coal? On this issue I agree with the hon. Member for Kidderminster.

Mr. Nabarro: That is twice that the hon. Gentleman has agreed with me.

Mr. Lee: It is a great pity, but at times there are flashes in the hon. Gentleman's vast inconsistencies with which I find myself compelled to agree.
We have agreed on both sides of the Committee that no economic case for the burning of oil in power stations in preference to coal has ever been made out. My belief is that, where power stations are away from an estuary, coal burning is a far more economic proposition than oil burning in power stations. If that is so, the Electricity Board, which is the biggest customer of the Coal Board, was forced off coal on to oil by the Government not for economic reasons at all. Can we have an undertaking that a far wider extension of coal burning in the power stations will now take place?
The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) said that he was not satisfied with the relations between monopolies and this House. Nor am I. We have the opportunity time after time to debate the public monopolies. We are debating them now—

Mr. Nabarro: On my initiative.

Mr. Lee: I agree, on the hon. Member's initiative—although I should have thought that the Minister might make the little point that he, perhaps, had something to do with our being able to debate these matters, as he introduced the Bill. Even the hon. Member for Kidderminster cannot move Amendments to Bills that are not presented—a point that he might care to consider some time.
I was referring to the righteous indignation of the hon. Member for Yeovil about our inability to debate questions of monopoly—

Mr. Peyton: I said nationalised industries.

Mr. Lee: If the hon. Gentleman says that they are not monopolies I will accept what he says—we are together again.
With each passing year, we see more and more public money being poured into the coffers of monopolies. For instance, I have been looking with some interest at the activities of the Minister of Aviation in the last few weeks. The Conservatives won a General Election last October, their principal cry being,

"Competitive private enterprise is supreme over monopoly". As soon as they had won that election they gave the Minister of Education the job of running around to eliminate competitive private enterprise throughout the whole aircraft industry. As yet, we have not been told the terms, but we know that they were a mixture of Government patronage, backed by public money, together with threats of what would happen to those private enterprises if they did not come in.
I agree with the hon. Member for Yeovil that the time has come when this House, charged as it is with responsibility to the nation for the public moneys that it expends, should have more opportunities to debate these matters, but while the nationalisation Acts gave us the power of debate, I know of no private industries—or private monopolies, if I may use that expression—that give us the opportunity to debate such vital matters as the use of public moneys
We are not here debating the question of the stocking of coal, but the basis of the development of the coal industry. Surely, one of the most difficult jobs for any industry is, at one and the same time, to cut back its production programme and to hold down its prices—

Mr. Nabarro: I moved the Amendment.

Mr. Lee: I have given the hon. Gentleman my opinion on that.
The Coal Board has had the terrific job of deliberately cutting back its production and, at the same time, holding down its prices. For two-and-a-half years there has not been any increase in the price of the Board's commodity. I should have thought that the Board was one of the main contributors to that stabilisation of prices for which the Chancellor of the Exchequer keeps asking.
Not only has the Board achieved this vast increase in efficiency during a period when it has had to cut back its production, but it has reached a point where the output per man shift will be 30 cwt. or 31 cwt. by 1965 In the East Midland and the North-Eastern Divisions they have already surpassed that, and have reached a total of 40 cwt. per man shift. Surely this is an enterprise


well worthy of the nation's backing—even forgetting the social side—as a purely financial project.
An industry that can show such figures when, for national reasons, it is compelled to cut back production is deserving of investment. Indeed, the improvement in productivity was largely responsible for a fall in production costs of about ls. 9d. a ton during 1958, although we know that, because of the burden of overheads, it was impossible to reduce the price of coal. Given the same conditions as coal had, there are precious few industries that could produce such a success story.
I ask the Committee to consider the basic issues that we are here debating, and not to be led up any garden paths by the hon. Member for Kidderminster. He has, of course, a "thing" about stocks. I share, in some measure, the apprehension about the size of those stocks—I am not comfortable about them by any means—but I am certain that the hon. Members' present suggestions are not in any way based on a belief, even on his part—he knows far too much about the industry for that—that they will assist in any way in reducing our present large stocks.
Again, what a way his suggestion would be of repaying an industry that has done so much in the social sphere. We argued on Second Reading that had the Board merely dismissed its employees—as it could have done had it looked at the matter entirely from the economic point of view—the National Insurance Fund would have had to maintain many thousands of unemployed miners, and National Assistance would have had to do the same thing. We should congratulate ourselves that so much accumulated misery has been avoided in the coal areas as a result of the responsible attitude of the Board.
The Board has a great job to do as competition from oil goes on intensifying. I have looked through its plan. I do not think that that plan is adequate for what is required in these five years I look at the method of the transformation of power from coal. Our ability to get power from coal at a far cheaper price than is at present the case may be a determining factor in coal's fight against oil.
The hon. Member for Kidderminster mentioned something which, I agree, is of vital importance, the effect of increased industrial production upon power consumption. I had something to say on that in our Second Reading debate. As the hon. Gentleman reminded us, we have seen a 10 per cent. increase in production in Britain this year—I doubt whether that will repeat itself, because it came from a static beginning—but the increase in the consumption of power is not in anything like the same ratio. It is, therefore, not necessarily the case that merely by increasing productivity we shall get a proportional increase in the demand for coal.
I think that the Minister could do a good job by getting some of his backroom boys really busy producing some sort of ratio between increased productivity and the production and consumption of power. It may well be that we can have, perhaps, a 3 per cent. average increase in production per annum coinciding with a reduction of 3 per cent. per annum in the use of fuel. That could be the position, so it is necessary that we should have a proper appreciation of such things.
We have recently had an increase in Bank Rate. I should have liked to discuss the terms and conditions upon which loans are made to the Board by the Treasury. Can the Minister tell the Committee what effect the increased Bank Rate will have on the loans that the Board is to draw from the Treasury? It would appear that as a result of that increase the conditions will be less favourable. Is that so? If it is, it could affect the ratio of development by the Coal Board under the "Revised Plan for Coal". Is it possible for the right hon. Gentleman to give us that information?
8.0 p.m.
It has been very sad for hon. Members on this side of the Committee to see the chaos and disruption on the Government benches today. But they need not fear. There will not be a single newspaper in Britain, outside, perhaps, the Daily Herald, which will comment upon it. With the exception of one speech, I do not think that the Minister has had a supporter among the Tory Party. Its members are split from stem to stern. What they will go into the Lobby about,


I do not know. Let us hear no more nonsense about the Labour Party being in great difficulty.
The Minister has been—I almost said stabbed in the back, but perhaps I should say stabbed in the side. He has been unable to find any supporters, with, perhaps, one exception, to say a good word for what he is doing. The Government obtained power partly on telling the country about a divided Opposition. It has been a miserable spectacle to see the hon. Member for Kidderminster glorying in the discomfiture of his own Front Bench—

Mr. Nabarro: Oh, no.

Mr. Lee: —aided and abetted by many of the rabble of the Suez rebels of yesterday, a motley crew who at that time kicked a little but were afraid to strike. We shall wait with interest to see whether the same rebels are afraid to strike after the debate on these Amendments.

Mr. Wood: I can assure the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Lee) that if I am never more acutely discomfited than I have been this afternoon I shall look forward to a very happy time at Westminster.
This has been a most instructive debate, perhaps even more instructive than the debate in which I took part last November, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to share with my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) some credit for the initiation of this valuable debate this afternoon.
We have ranged during the last four hours fairly widely over the field of coal, oil and other fuels. I should like to draw the attention of the Committee to the actual figures contained in the Amendment. The Amendment suggests that the first limit, which the Bill says should be £700 million, should be reduced to £675 million, and it also suggests that the second limit, which the Bill proposes should be £750 million, should be limited to £700 million. At the end of December, 1959, the total borrowings had reached a level of £590 million and they are likely to rise to about £630 million at the peak level towards the end of the present financial year—that is, the nation's financial year

as opposed to the Coal Board's financial year.
The effect of this Amendment, if it were approved, would be that at the end of this financial year, in April, only £45 million of additional borrowing powers would be left unless I were to make a further order, and the effect, too, would be that the overall limit proposed in the Amendment—the second limit—would be reached in the financial year 1961–62. Therefore, however good the results of the National Coal Board in the next months and couple of years, it would mean, as several of my hon. Friends have made clear, that further Parliamentary action would be necessary in order to try to provide sufficient money, both early next year, in the shape of an Order, and also early in 1962 not in the shape of an Order but in the shape of a new Bill.
I appreciate the desire of my hon. Friends to keep a close watch on the progress of the coal industry and I understand that that wish that they have is shared by a number of hon. Members opposite who have spoken in the debate. I am quite convinced, however, that it is one thing to try to ensure regular examination of the industry, as I have attempted to do, by making it necessary for me to have an Order to go to the final limits in the Bill—and we may have an opportunity to discuss this matter on the next Amendment—but it is completely another matter to allow a great industry like the coal industry only two years certainty that the necessary capital is going to be available.
This is brought out by the figure of capital expenditure expected between 1960 and 1965 on schemes in progress at present, and out of the £535 million which the Board plans to spend up to 1965, £200 million is to be spent on schemes already in progress. Therefore, if we materially reduce the extent of the borrowing powers available we must necessarily hit at the £200 million on schemes at present in progress.
Several hon. Members, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Skeet) and the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Boyden), have directed my attention to the question of research. My hon. Friend said that one of the reasons why he could not support the Amendment of


my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster was because he felt that research was vitally necessary. I know that a number of hon. Members agree. I am told that at the moment several million pounds are being spent on research into coal utilisation, development and usage; the coal industry is spending about £2 million. As the Committee knows, the Wilson Committee is sitting at present and, I hope, will report before very long to advise me on the possible further uses of coal.
I am certain that the Committee will agree that my own position, if the Amendment were approved, would be quite impossible because, as has been pointed out, it is on behalf of the Government that I recently gave approval to the "Revised Plan for Coal." As I see it, that approval that I gave must carry with it the obligation to make available the necessary capital. I must leave the Committee in no doubt that I intend to do so, because the only interpretation that could be put on a refusal to do so would be that I have no confidence in the Board's plans Despite what has been said by a number of hon. Members about our views on the future of the coal industry, I am confident that the Board will carry out the plans which are set before it.
Various methods have been put forward this afternoon by which it has been suggested that the National Coal Board might avoid the necessity for asking for the greater borrowing powers that are contained in the Bill and might, therefore, be satisfied with the lesser borrowing powers contained in the Amendment. As I understand from several speeches that I have been fortunate enough to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster make in the last few months, he believes that this level of stocks in the country at present is a great deal too high. I am bound to admit that in spite of his claims of consistency, when I hear him state this proposition that the stocks of 50 million tons are too high, I find myself in considerable confusion.
He will probably recall his speech—a very good speech too, with one or two minor blemishes or aberrations—of just over a year ago on 3rd December, 1958. in which he said:

If we are to mine 200 million tons of coal a year. I would not regard it as unreasonable to have an aggregation of distributed and undistributed stocks of 50 million tons, which is one-quarter of a year's production.
He went on to say:
Any prudent business engaged in large-scale operations normally keeps about three months' stocks in hand at any one time… —'[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd December, 1958; Vol. 596. c. 1235.]

Mr. Nabarro: I have been absolutely consistent. I have with me the speech that I made on 3rd December, 1958. I said that three months' stocks would be about the right figure and that 50 million tons would be reasonable as an aggregation of distributed and undistributed stocks. I still hold this view. These Amendments are designed to prevent a further increase in the stocks after next April above 50 million tons.

Mr. Wood: I can only say that if my hon. Friend speaks or replies to me in those terms, I shall be more greatly confused; but, even accepting that philosophy as his, I find his mathematics about the level of stocks or the likely level of stocks very difficult to follow. He has been suggesting that the stocks at the end of 1960 are more likely to increase by 25 million tons than, as I believe, to decrease by a very small marginal amount. He suggested that they will rise from 50 million tons to 75 million tons, and that is roughly consonant with his last intervention. He has suggested that consumption will not be 196 million tons, as the Board and I believe, but that it will be 185 million tons.

Mr. Nabarro: If my right hon. Friend will allow me. I have said it twice. I said it on Second Reading on 23rd November, and I have said it again this afternoon, that consumption this year would be 190 million tons and next year it would be 185 million tons.

Mr. Wood: That makes my point even clearer. My hon. Friend has suggested that consumption will be 190 million tons and that stocks will increase by 25 million tons. Therefore, presumably, production will be 215 million tons, which is a considerable increase—one of 9 million tons—over 1959. At the same time, of course, certain reductions which many hon. Members do not think are adequate are being made in opencast


mining. There are certain pit closures and there are certain closures of faces. I find it difficult to believe that, even with increased output per man shift, production in this country, instead of decreasing, as the National Coal Board expects it to do, will in fact increase as my hon. Friend suggests by about 9 million tons.
I must confess that I find my hon. Friend's mathematics difficult to follow, but in turn I must apologise to him because he apparently finds my own mathematics very difficult to follow. He handed me a statement about coal stocks which had been issued by the Ministry of Power and which I understand has since been corrected. I must apologise to my hon. Friend for its inaccuracy. The decrease in the total of distributed and undistributed stocks of coal, in which I know my hon. Friend is particularly interested, because we were discussing the figure together just now, is something in the neighbourhood of 3 million tons in the last month, and the decrease in the undistributed stocks in the last month, between December, 1959, and January, 1960, is something just over 1 million—1,150,000 tons. The significance of this is not perhaps very great in itself, because I appreciate the considerations which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Fylde (Colonel Lancaster) mentioned. The significance is that it compares with a decrease last year of only 120,000 tons for the same period.
My hon. Friend would like to find some means of reducing the stocks more quickly. Frankly, I think there is only one means of decreasing the stocks, and that is to see that production is below the demand; and, therefore, stocks cannot be run down more quickly unless we are prepared to cut production a good deal more severely than we are doing at present. I do not believe that there is any possible escape out of that fundamental dilemma at the present time.
My hon. Friend the Member for Torrington (Mr. P. Browne) mentioned one or two very useful points which I should like to take up. I will certainly examine them and I hope to profit from them. The question of opencast mining which a great many hon. Gentlemen mentioned this afternoon has been con-

sidered in various aspects, but one aspect which has been almost totally ignored today, which is odd in view of the fact that we are talking very directly about the National Coal Board's future and its profitability in the future, is that this opencast mining is obviously the Board's most profitable enterprise. Despite that, I was in agreement with the reduction in output which I see the chairman of the Board recently confirmed—the reduction to 7 million tons of opencast mined coal, and I look forward, as the Committee does, to a further reduction.
In my view, and in the view of the Board, the only justification for going forward much more quickly and rupturing the contracts, which a number of hon. Gentleman would like to see done, was if the cost of stocking this year each ton of coal which is already on the ground was considerably higher than the cost of compensation in rupturing the contract. I am advised that that is not the case. The cost of stocking coal on the ground, provided that the stocks are not added to this year, will be something like 4s. per ton for the coming year. In my view and in the view of the Board, that is going to be considerably smaller than the cost of rupturing the opencast mining contracts, which I agree and I think the whole Committee will agree, we should like to see run down as quickly as is practicable in the future.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Is not my right hon. Friend bringing into the argument the initial cost of producing the coal?

Mr. Wood: That has all been calculated. There is not only the loss of profit for the Coal Board on coal which it would not be producing if the view of my noble Friend were to prevail, but also the cost of breaking the contract to balance against the stocking of coal for an extra year. I have been into that very carefully, and I am quite convinced that it would be vastly more expensive to the Board if I were to suggest or if they were to decide to go ahead and cut down much more quickly.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. J. T. Price: Why all this, to my mind, unnecessary secrecy about the global cost of disposing of the contract if necessary by compensation? I have heard it stated as high as £35 million. If that figure is correct—and I heard it


from an authoritative source—it completely destroys the argument of the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), who pd a much lower figure in his speech, to which I listened with interest.

Mr. Wood: I cannot give it, because I do not know it. The cost of compensation is always a rather intangible affair. I know that the hon. Gentleman keeps his ear close to the ground and might have information for once even more accurate than that which is given to my hon. Friend. I should like to mention a subject which has been discussed a certain amount in this debate, and that is the question of the use of fuel by Government Departments, and, in particular, by the Home Office in connection with the prisons. I understand that my hon. Friend has been given answers to three very long and interesting questions this afternoon by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. I understand that the reason why the Home Secretary has had to take action is that a number of the prisons are rather confined in space and the only advantage of the oil which is to be used over the solid fuel which we should have liked to have seen used is that it is more amenable to confined spaces.
I have asked my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary—I hope the Committee will approve—to write to his colleagues in the Government to suggest to them not necessarily that they should always burn solid fuel in any establishments under their control but that they should consider very carefully always the merits of coal as compared with oil and, in particular, compare the most modern coal-burning equipment with the most modern oil-burning equipment. So often, the comparison is made between out-of-date coal burning equipment and the newest oil-burning equipment, which comparison is obviously unfavourable to coal. If the proper comparison is made, I am quite certain, as many hon. Gentlemen have said already, that coal can hold its place.
The hon. Member for Newton and other hon. Members mentioned the use of oil in power stations. I want to take this opportunity of correcting one or two reports which recently appeared in the Press of some remarks I am alleged to

have made in Newcastle. These reports, I think, fell below that standard of accuracy which some of us expect of Fleet Street. I was represented as having said something which seemed very strange when I read it in the newspaper. All I said was that I would not be so optimistic as to say that no oil would continue to be burned in power stations in the future.
It is important to have this matter in perspective. Even if every oil-burning power station were converted to coal, the extra coal consumed would amount to about 4 million tons a year. Of course, that includes a power station such as Bankside which, for reasons of clean air, will obviously continue to burn the fuel it has now. I should like to be able to give to the Committee the latest information I have on this matter. I ask for its indulgence because I do not want to say anything this evening which might prejudice the consideration which I am giving and shall give to this matter. I certainly have been left in no doubt of the wishes which, I think, are shared generally on both sides.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster asked me about the deficit of the National Coal Board. I understand that, at the end of the year before last, December, 1958, it was about £28·1 million. My hon. Friend has that figure because it has been published. As he knows, it is too early for me to say what the deficit is likely to be for last year. There have been various Press reports of interviews between the chairman of the National Coal Board and the Press. I understand that the deficit last year is likely to be something over £20 million. That added to the other figure, with my hon. Friend's mathematical ability, will total something approaching £50 million.
I disagree very strongly indeed with my hon. Friend's estimate that to that will have to be added another £50 million in 1960. I do not know where he gets that figure from. Frankly, I do not think that it does the cause we all have at heart much good to take so gloomy a view of the future. I do not believe that that will be the trading result of the National Coal Board, and I should very much like my hon. Friend at some time to tell me the figures on which he bases his estimate. I am very clear about the


difficulties and hazards of forecasting for coal, as I am sure he is, but I think that that forecast will be very wide of the mark.
The hon. Member for lnce (Mr. T. Brown) and other hon. Members suggested that my hon. Friends, by putting down their Amendment, my disagreement with which I have made very clear, have as their motive the wish to see the National Coal Board fail. I profoundly disagree. I do not think that that is their motive at all. I believe that they are just as anxious as hon. Members

opposite to see the success of the National Coal Board. That, I believe, is the motive which inspired them, although I profoundly disagree with the Amendment and I ask the Committee to reject it. I have said already that the "Revised Plan for Coal" to which I gave approval commits me to find this money. Therefore, I must ask the Committee to accept the two overall limits contained in Clause 1.

Question put, That the words "seven hundred" stand part of the Clause:—

The Commttee divided: Ayes 179. Noes 11.

Division No. 27]
AYES
[8.26 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Gresham Cooke, R.
Pilkington, Capt. Richard


Aitken, w. T.
Groavenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Pitman, I. J.


Allason, James
Gurden, Harold
Pitt, Miss Edith


Barber, Anthony
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Pott, Percivall


Barlow, Sir John
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Powell, J. Enoch


Batsford, Brian
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Prior, J. M. L.


Berkeley, Humphry
Hay, John
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Bidgood, John C.
Hendry, A. Forbes
Ramsden, James


Bingham, R. M.
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Bossom, Clive
Hooking, Philip N.
Renton, David


Bourne-Arton, A.
Holland, Philip
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


Box, Donald
Hollingworth, John
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Boyden, James
Hopkins, Alan
Roots, William


Boyle, Sir Edward
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Braine, Bernard
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Hughes-Young, Michael
Russell, Ronald


Bryan, Paul
Ivine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Jackson, John
Saymour, Leslie


Burden, F. A.
James, David
Shepherd, William


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Jennings, J. C.
Skeet, T. H. H.


Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)
Johnson, Erie (Blackley)
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Joseph, Sir Keith
Speir, Rupert


Channon, H. P. G.
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Spriggs, Leslie


Chataway, Christopher
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Kirk, Peter
Stodart, J. A.


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Leburn, Gilmour
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Storey, Sir Samuel


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Studholme, Sir Henry


Cleaver, Leonard
Lilley, F. J. P.
Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)


Collard, Richard
Litchfield, Capt. John
Sumner, Donald (Orpington)


Cooke, Robert
Logan, David
Talbot, John E.


Costain, A. P.
Longbottom, Charles
Tapsell, Peter


Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Longden, Gilbert
Temple, John M.


Critchley, Julian
Loveys, Walter H.
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Cunningham, Knox
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Curran, Charles
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Thomas, Peter (Conway)


Currie, G. B. H.
MacArthur, Ian
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Deedes, W. F.
McLaren, Martin
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Digby, Simon Wingfield
McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia
Turner, Colin


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Doughty, Charles
McMaster, Stanley
vane, W. M. F.


Drayson, G. B.
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Duncan, Sir James
Maddan, Martin
Wall, Patrick


Elliott, R. W.
Maginnis, John E.
Ward, Rt. Hon. George (Worcester)


Emery, Peter
Marten, Neil
Webster, David


Errington, Sir Eric
Mathew, Robert (Honiton)
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Farr, John
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Finlay, Graeme
Mawby, Ray
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Mills, Stratton
Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard


Freeth, Denzil
Montgomery, Fergus
Woodhouse, C. M.


Gardner, Edward
Noble, Michael
Woodnutt, Mark


George, J. C. (Pollok)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Woof, Robert


Gibson-Watt, David
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Woollam, John


Glyn, Col. Richard H. (Dorset, N.)
Osborne, Cyril (Louth)
Worsley, Marcus



Godber, J. B.
Page, Graham
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Goodhart, Philip
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)



Gower, Raymond
Partridge, E.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Grant, Rt. Hon. William (Woodside)
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Mr. Whitelaw and Mr. Sharples.


Green, Alan
Percival, Ian





NOES


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Hiley, Joseph
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Brewis, John
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount



Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Eden, John
Teeling, William
Mr. Nabarro and Mr. Peyton.


Goodhew, Victor
Watts, James

Mr. Nabarro: I beg to move, in page 4, line 2, to leave out "seventy-five" and to insert "fifty".
The Amendment has rather different considerations from the Amendment on which we have just voted. It is the successor in title, but three years removed, to the Motion which a number of my hon. Friends and myself moved on 10th May, 1956, when we insisted on a Statutory Instrument procedure to authorise the capital expenditure programme of the National Coal Board each year.
On Second Reading of the Coal Industry Bill, in 1956, 25 of my hon. Friends and myself voted against the Government on that principle to secure the Statutory Instrument procedure in all circumstances annually to authorise the capital expenditure of the Board in respect of the forthcoming year.
On 2nd July, 1956, during the Committee stage of the Bill—the Minister of Fuel and Power was then my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Aubrey Jones)—the Government conceded the principle to us which they would not do on Second Reading. They conceded that when the aggregation of sums borrowed by the Board at the conclusion of any one year exceeded by a sum of £75 million the aggregation of sums borrowed in respect of a date one year earlier a Statutory Instrument should be laid.
The purpose of the Amendment is to reduce the amount of £75 million to £50 million, thereby increasing the accountability of the National Coal Board to Parliament. The reason I seek at this stage to increase the accountability is because of the intrusion of stocks. When we originally had the Statutory Instrument procedure conceded to us it was based on the understanding that the Instrument would be in respect of capital expenditure only. May I remind my right hon. Friend that stocks are not capital expenditure?
I believe that as £50 million of the sum provided under the Bill is for

financing stocks—the Parliamentary Secretary said so—

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power (Mr. J. C. George): indicated dissent.

Mr. Nabarro: I do not want to quarrel with my hon. Friend again, as I have just quarrelled with him in the Lobby, but he said that £50 million was for stocks. I shall have to p what my hon. Friend said if he continues to shake his head.
Because of the intrusion of this financial element in respect of stocks, as we are changing the basis of the Statutory Instrument it is necessary to reduce the sums and thereby endeavour to ensure that greater accountability is given to Parliament.

Mr. George: My hon. Friend has said two or three times today that I said that £50 million of the money given by the Bill is to finance stocks, and pd column 151 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of 23rd November, 1959. In column 151 I told him what composed that Order. I did not mention the Bill at all. In the £120 million in the Order, £50 million of that was to be for stocks, but not £50 million of the money in the Bill.

Mr. Nabarro: My hon. Friend is surely making a mistake. He has not read the Statutory Instrument. It says nothing about stocks. The Explanatory Memorandum, which is a draft Instrument issued by the Minister of Fuel and Power, refers to section 26 of the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act. 1946, which enables the Board
to defray expenditure properly chargeable to capital account …
That is the £120 million that my hon. Friend was talking about. In the £120 million he includes a provision for stocks. He cannot wriggle out of it.
We now have a foreign matter intruding into this Statutory Instrument procedure. It is no longer a matter of capital account only; it is a matter of
stocks. I submit that that is a valid


reason for asking that Parliament should look more often at the financial affairs of this vast and costly State Board.

Mr. William Shepherd: My hon. Friend is making a point which I cannot clearly follow.

Mr. Nabarro: My hon. Friend has not been here today.

Mr. Shepherd: I have listened to all the arguments addressed to the Committee on this issue. I have always believed that expenditure on stocks can be as much capital expenditure as can expenditure on machinery. I cannot appreciate the distinction which my hon. Friend is making.

Mr. Nabarro: To hear a statement of that kind from a person who is actively engaged in private business is anathema to me. Capital expenditure, in the context of the National Coal Board or any productive undertaking, must mean sums vested on capital account. Stocks are expendable, and cannot properly be classified as sums of money spent on capital account. The Statutory Instrument procedure was designed to deal with moneys spent on capital account.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will be a little more compliant and flexible than he was on an earlier occasion this evening. This is an important matter. I do not propose that the Coal Board should be allowed to run until early next year, or later, without my having a very good look at what is going on in Hobart House. I designed this Statutory Instrument procedure, applicable to the Coal Board, for the purpose of enabling me, from the Government side, to initiate a debate on its affairs.
I am not satisfied with a Supply Day, because the initiative as to the subject chosen then rests with the Opposition. I want the initiative to be on the Government side, and that means effectively in my hands. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Oh, yes; it means effectively in my hands, to initiate the debate, so that I may poke a probing finger into the financial affairs of the Board.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I hope that the hon. Member will readjust his views on the point that he has just raised. Many hon. Members on this side of the Committee agree that the nationalised industries should be more accountable to

elected representatives of Parliament. My hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown), the late hon. Member for Abertillery and I argued this matter in a very critical way with the present Lord Morrison of Lambeth in a room behind Mr. Speaker's Chair when the relevant legislation was going through. Time has proved the correctness of our line then, and I hope that the hon. Member will admit that this is a House of Commons matter. It is not an Opposition matter or a Government matter; the responsibility is that of the House of Commons.

Mr. Nabarro: I do not dissent from anything which the hon. Member has said, but if I, together with 25 of my hon. Friends, had not taken the ultimate sanction of voting against the Government on 10th May, 1956, on the Coal Industry Bill, we would never have seen this Statutory Instrument procedure.
Now, because of the position of stocks, I want the limit applied to that procedure reduced from £75 million to £50 million a year. I hope that the few words I have addressed to the Committee on this subject will take not only my friends, but also hon. Members opposite with me. They all ought to be as insistent as I am that Ministers should be kept in good order in these matters. I have every intention of keeping my right hon. Friend in admirable order, through the Statutory Instrument procedure and otherwise.

Mr. Peyton: I have no desire to repeat what my hon. Friend has said, or I have said earlier this afternoon. I formally support the Amendment.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Wood: I found it very difficult to follow the relevance of the point which my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) was making about the stocks and the working capital. Section 26 of the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act, 1946, says:
For the purpose of enabling the Board to defray expenditure properly chargeable to capital account, including the provision of working capital, the Minister may make advances to the Board…
It therefore seems to me that if my hon. Friend's intention is that the House should have a frequent opportunity to look at the affairs of the coal


industry, the frequency would be likely to be increased by the consideration of which he seemed to be making great play, namely, that a great deal of the capital borrowings in recent years had been devoted to stocking coal. The Amendment suggests that the annual limit between peaks should be £50 million, instead of the £75 million at present laid down in the Bill.
Perhaps I can refer to the history of the borrowing powers and the annual limit. Hon. Members will know that the Act to which I have referred put a total limit on the borrowings of the Coal Board, but placed no annual limit on those borrowings. When the Government of the party opposite increased the borrowing powers of the Board from £150 million to £300 million in 1951, it was my hon. Friends who, on that occasion, pressed for an annual limit of £30 million. I think it important for tie Committee to consider that the annual limit of £30 million which my hon. Friends then had in mind was considerably above the expected level of annual borrowings by the Board. The tight hon. Member for Derby, South (Mr. P. Noel-Baker), the then Minister of Fuel and Power, in reply to my hon. Friends' suggestions, fixed an annual limit of £40 million, just about twice the expected level of borrowings in any one year.
Now we come to the time my hon. Friend was talking about, of the Coal Industry Act of 1956, when the borrowing powers were raised to £650 million. On that occasion the then Minister raised the annual limit to £75 million, where it is at present. He intended that limit to be neither so high as to exclude the possibility of periodic review by Parliament nor so low as to make it necessary every year. I think that on one occasion he expressed the view that the limit of £75 million would probably bite in two or three of the five years covered by the 1956 Act.
When I was engaged in drafting this Bill, at the end of last year, I gave considerable thought to what should be the proper future of the annual limit. I saw a case for abolishing the annual limit because the procedure which I was suggesting in the Bill, of the Coal Board getting these extra capital borrowings

as it were in two bites, provided for a review by the House of Commons if anything went wrong with the estimates of the Board. But, on consideration, I was quite clear that Parliament preferred to retain the annual limit at some level and, indeed, only a very low limit would secure Parliamentary review in what I would call the early middle 'sixties, in or about 1965. Therefore, I decided to advise Parliament that the limit should remain at £75 million.
I wish the Committee to consider the effect of reducing the limit to £50 million in any one year. It would almost certainly mean that an Order would be necessary in the financial year 1960–61, because the Board's borrowings will probably exceed £50 million in that year. In the next year, 1961–62, it would, anyhow, be necessary for me to present an Order to the House under the new provisions in the Bill so as to increase the borrowing power above £700 million; that is a different kind of Order expressly provided for in the Bill.
In the following year, 1962–63, if the £50 million limit were exceeded a new Bill would be necessary, because the whole borrowings of £750 million would be exceeded. In fact, in the early middle 1960s, in 1963, 1964, and so on, the £50 million borrowing limit which my hon. Friend suggests is unlikely to secure a Parliamentary review because the annual borrowing in that year under the estimates the Board has made are likely to be well below that figure.
I hope that I have not confused the Committee, but the effect of my hon. Friend's Amendment, in my view, would be to secure in the whole future life of Parliament one extra debate on the coal industry some time in the next twelve months, when it will probably be necessary for me to make an Order to increase the annual borrowing above £50 million. In the light of the debate that we have had today, I cannot help realising, how important is this year for the industry. I sincerely hope that it will be able to stabilise its position so as to be ready for an advance next year.
Having heard the speeches this afternoon, I am quite well aware of the interest which Parliament has taken, and will continue to take, in the future of the industry. I have heard several hon.


Members opposite supporting the possibility in the future of opportunities for the House to look at the coal industry. The hon. Member suggested that it was no good trying to escape the sharp logic which came from this side of the Committee and I thought that a persuasive phrase. Therefore, I should be unreasonable if, on this occasion, I refused to accept my hon. Friend's Amendment which, to the best of my belief, would give to Parliament one opportunity to discuss the programme of the industry.

Mr. Lee: I am very pleased that the Minister is not to accept this Amendment—

Hon. Members: But he is.

Mr. Wood: I wish to make clear that this Amendment would give one extra opportunity to Parliament to discuss the industry and, therefore, I thought it unreasonable not to accept it.

Mr. Lee: I did not hear the "not" in the Minister's last sentence.
If I may reverse my words, I am extremely sorry that he proposes to accept the Amendment. That is not because we are not desirous that any of the nationalised industries should be accountable to Parliament. There have been exchanges on this subject and I think I am right in saying that a committee is now discussing the question of accountability. But I consider it irresponsible for the Minister to accept an Amendment based on the premises upon which this has been based by the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro).
In his speech rejecting the last Amendment the Minister told us that a great industry such as this could not be run on a shoestring in the matter of time. He mentioned two years and said that if it were restricted to short periods it was impossible for the industry to plan ahead.
The hon. Member for Kidderminster told us that it is he who controls the Coal Board and not the Minister. Under the pretence of obtaining accountability to Parliament he is

attempting not to use but to abuse the undoubted rights of Parliament to watch over the financing of the great nationalised industries. I fail to understand how the responsible men who are running the industry, from Sir James Bowman downwards, can be expected to plan their programme ahead when they know that each year they will have to seek the assent of the hon. Member for Kidderminster and the cabal who support him on these issues.
We believe that this action is entirely irresponsible. I use the arguments which the Minister himself adduced, because I see no essential difference between this Amendment and those Amendments which the right hon. Gentleman refused to accept. As this is not a question of accountability to Parliament, and as it is to be accepted by a Government who are lavishing hundreds of millions of pounds of public money on private monopolies without any accountability to Parliament, we do not see how they can claim to accept the Amendment because of a desire for accountability. It is sheer hypocrisy, and I ask my hon. Friends to divide the Committee upon the Amendment.

Mr. Nabarro: I should be churlish if I did not express to my right hon. Friend my gratitude to him for meeting the point of view expressed by my hon. Friends and myself by accepting this Amendment.
I assure the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Lee) that none of the imputations which he has just made is correct. My only purpose in putting this Amendment on the Notice Paper was to make quite certain that the National Coal Board would have to come to Parliament to have its annual expenditure confirmed by Parliament at least once every twelve months. I have achieved my objective I think that that is very good progress, and I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for the generous fashion in which he has responded to the pleas of my hon. Friends and myself.

Question put, That "seventy-five" stand part of the Clause:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 106, Noes 177.

Division No. 28.]
AYES
[8.59 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Peart, Frederick


Ainsley, William
Hannan, William
Pentland, Norman


Awbery, Stan
Hayman, F. H.
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Bacon, Miss Alice
Herbison, Miss Margaret
Prentice, R. E.


Baxter, William (Stirlingeshire, W.)
Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Bence, Cyril (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Holman, Percy
Probert, Arthur


Blackburn, F.
Hoy, James H.
Rankin, John


Blyton, William
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Reid, William


Boardman, H.
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. Alfred


Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S.W.)
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Boyden, James
Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech(Wakefield)
Ross, William


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Short, Edward


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Chetwynd, George
Kelley, Richard
Small, William


Cliffe, Michael
King, Dr. Horace
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Lawson, George
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Spriggs, Leslie


Darling, George
Logan, David
Stones, William


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Loughlin, Charles
Swain, Thomas


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Sylvester George


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
McInnes, James
Symonds, J. B.


Deer, George
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Diamond, John
Mackie, John
Watkins, Tudor


Dodds, Norman
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Wheeldon, W. E.


Ede, Rt. Hon. Chuter
Manuel, A. C.
White, Mrs. Eirene


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Mapp, Charles
Whitlock, William


Fernyhough, E.
Mason, Roy
Wilkins, W. A.


Finch, Harold
Mellish, R. J.
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Fitch, Alan
Millan, Bruce
Williams, Rev. Ll. (Abertillery)


Forman, J. C.
Mort, D. L.
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Neal, Harold
Winterbottom, R. E.


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Oliver, G. H.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Ginsburg, David
Oram, A. E.
Woof, Robert


Grey, Charles
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)



Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Redhead and Mr. Mahon.




NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Errington, Sir Eric
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey


Aitken, W. T.
Farr, John
Joseph, Sir Keith


Allason, James
Finlay, Graeme
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.


Atkins, Humphrey
Foster, John
Kerr, Sir Hamilton


Barber, Anthony
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Kirk, Peter


Barlow, Sir John
Freeth, Denzil
Leburn, Gilmour


Batsford, Brian
Gardner, Edward
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)


Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
George, J. C. (Pollok)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Berkeley, Humphry
Gibson-Watt, David
Lilley, F. J. P.


Bingham, R. M.
Glyn, Col. Richard H. (Dorset, N.)
Litchfield, Capt. John


Bossom, Clive
Godber, J. B.
Longbottom, Charles


Bourne-Arton, A.
Goodhart, Philip
Loveys, Walter H.


Box, Donald
Goodhew, Victor
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)


Boyle, Sir Edward
Gower, Raymond
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Braine, Bernard
Grant, Rt. Hon. William (Woodside)
MacArthur, Ian


Brewis, John
Green, Alan
McLaren, Martin


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Gresham Cooke, R.
McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia


Bryan, Paul
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Gurden, Harold
McMaster, Stanley


Burden, F. A.
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Maddan, Martin


Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Maginnis, John E.


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Marten, Nell


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Hay, John
Mathew, Robert (Honiton)


Channon, H. P. G.
Heath, Rt. Hon. Edward
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)


Chataway, Christopher
Hendry, A. Forbes
Mawby, Ray


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Hiley, Joseph
Mills, Stratton


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Montgomery, Fergus


Cleaver, Leonard
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Nabarro, Gerald


Collard, Richard
Hocking, Philip N.
Noble, Michael


Costain, A. P.
Holland, Philip
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Hollingworth, John
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Critchley, Julian
Holt, Arthur
Osborne, Cyril (Louth)


Cunningham, Knox
Hopkins, Alan
Page, Graham


Curran, Charles
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Partridge, E.


Currie, G. B. H.
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)


Deedes, W. F.
Hughes-Young, Michael
Percival, Ian


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Peyton, John


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Jackson, John
Pilkington, Capt. Richard


Doughty, Charles
James, David
Pitman, I. J.


Duncan, Sir James
Jennings, J. C.
Pott, Percivail


Elliott, R. W.
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Powell, J. Enoch


Emery, Peter
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Price, David (Eastleigh)







Prior, J. M. L.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm
Wall, Patrick


Proudfoot, Wilfred
Storey, Sir Samuel
Ward, Rt. Hon. George (Worcester)


Ramsden, James
Studholme, Sir Henry
Watts, James


Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)
Webster, David


Ridley, Hon. Nicholas
Sumner, Donald (Orpington)
Whitelaw, William


Roots, William
Talbot, John E.
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Tapsell, Peter
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)
Temple, John M.
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Russell, Ronald
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard


Scott-Hopkins, James
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Woodhouse, C. M.


Seymour, Leslie
Thomas, Peter (Conway)
Woodnutt, Mark


Shepherd, William
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Woollam, John


Skeet, T. H. H.
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)
Worsley, Marcus


Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'rd &amp; Chiswick)
Turner, Colin
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Speir, Rupert
Vane, W. M. F.



Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Vickers, Miss Joan
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Stodart, J. A.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Mr. Chichester-Clark and




Mr. Sharples.

Mr. Lee: Do I take it, Sir William, that you are not calling my Amendment, in page 4, line 10, at the end to insert:
And provided that the Minitser shall direct that payments of interest in respect of advances made under this section are to be at a rate not exceeding the lowest rate determined by the Treasury in respect of advances made by way of Government loan to manufacturers of steel during the period of six months before the date of such advances to the National Coal Board, and that the terms of repayment shall not be less advantageous".

The Deputy-Chairman: Yes. The hon. Member's Amendment is out of order and is, therefore, not selected.
I am sorry that I failed to put the second part of the Amendment that we have just dealt with. I will do so now.

Question put, That "fifty" be there inserted:—

The Commitee divided: Ayes 178, Noes 108.

Division No. 29.]
AYES
[9.9 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Duncan, Sir James
Kerans, Cdr. J. s.


Aitken, W. T.
Elliott, R. W.
Kerr, Sir Hamilton


Allason, James
Emery, Peter
Kirk, Peter


Atkins, Humphrey
Errington, Sir Eric
Lambton, Viscount


Barber, Anthony
Farr, John
Leburn, Gilmour


Barlow, Sir John
Finlay, Graeme
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)


Barter, John
Foster, John
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Batsford, Brian
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Lilley, F. J. P.


Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
Freeth, Denzil
Litchfield, Capt. John


Berkeley, Humphry
Gardner, Edward
Longbottom, Charles


Bidgood, John C.
Gibson-Watt, David
Loveys Walter H.


Bingham, R. M.
Glyn, Col. Richard H. (Dorset, N.)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Bossom, Clive
Godber, J. B.
MacArthur, Ian


Bourne-Arton, A.
Goodhart, Philip
McLaren, Martin


Box, Donald
Goodhew, Victor
McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia


Boyle, Sir Edward
Gower, Raymond
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John


Braine, Bernard
Grant, Rt. Hon. William (Woodside)
McMaster, Stanley


Brewis, John
Green, Alan
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)


Browne, Peroy (Torrington)
Gresham Cooke, R.
Maddan, Martin


Bryan, Paul
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Maginnis, John E.


Bullus, Wing Commander Erie
Gurden, Harold
Marten, Neil


Burden, F. A.
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Mathew, Robert (Honiton)


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)


Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Mawby, Ray


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Mills, Stratton


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Hendry, A. Forbes
Montgomery, Fergus


Channon, H. P. G.
Hiley, Joseph
Nabarro, Gerald


Chataway, Christopher
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Noble, Michael


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Hocking, Philip N.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Holland, Philip
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Cleaver, Leonard
Hollingworth, John
Osborne, Cyril (Louth)


Collard, Richard
Holt, Arthur
Page, Graham


Cooke, Robert
Hopkins, Alan
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)


Costain, A. P.
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Partridge, E.


Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)


Critchley, Julian
Hughes-Young, Michael
Percival, Ian


Cunningham, Knox
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Peyton, John


Curran, Charles
Jackson, John
Pilkington, Capt. Richard


Currie, G. B. H.
James, David
Pitman, I. J.


Deedes, W. F.
Jennings, J. C.
Pott, Percivall


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Powell, J. Enoch


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Doughty, Charles
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Prior, J. M. L.


Drayson, G. B.
Joseph, Sir Keith
Proudfoot, Wilfred




Ramsden, James
Studholme, Sir Henry
Watts, James


Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)
Webster, David


Ridley, Hon. Nicholas
Sumner, Donald (Orpington)
Whitelaw, William


Roots, William
Talbot, John E.
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Tapsell, Peter
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)
Temple, John M.
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Russell, Ronald
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard


Scott-Hopkins, James
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Woodhouse, C. M.


Seymour, Leslie
Thomas, Peter (Conway)
Woodnutt, Mark


Shepherd, William
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Woollam, John


Skeet, T. H. H.
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)
Worsley, Marcus


Smith, Dudley(Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)
Turner, Colin
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Speir, Rupert
Vane, W. M. F.



Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Vickers, Miss Joan
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Stodart, J. A.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Mr. Chichester-Clark and


Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm
Wall, Patrick
Mr. Sharples


Storey, Sir Samuel
Ward, Rt. Hon. George (Worcester)





NOES


Abse, Leo
Hayman, F. H.
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Ainsley, William
Herbison, Miss Margaret
Prentice, R. E.


Awbery, Stan
Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Holman, Percy
Probert, Arthur


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Hoy, James H.
Rankin, John


Beaney, Alan
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Reid, William


Bence, Cyril (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. Alfred


Blackburn, F.
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Blyton, William
Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech(Wakefield)
Ross, William


Boardman, H.
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Short, Edward


Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S.W.)
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Boyden, James
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Kelley, Richard
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
King, Dr. Horace
Small, William


Chetwynd, George
Lawson, George
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Cliffe, Michael
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Logan, David
Spriggs, Leslie


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Loughlin, Charles
Stones, William


Darling, George
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Swain, Thomas


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
McInnes, James
Sylvester, George


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Symonds, J. B.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Mackie, John
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Deer, George
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Wainwright, Edwin


Diamond, John
Manuel, A. C.
Warbey, William


Dodds, Norman
Mapp, Charles
Watkins, Tudor


Ede, Rt. Hon. Chuter
Mason, Roy
Wheeldon, W. E.


Fernyhough, E.
Mellish, R. J.
White, Mrs. Eirene


Finch, Harold
Millan, Bruce
Wilkins, W. A.


Fitch, Alan
Mort, D. L.
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Forman, J. C.
Neal, Harold
Williams, Rev. LI. (Abertillery)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Oliver, G. H.
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Oram, A. E.
Winterbottom, R. E.


Ginsburg, David
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Grey, Charles
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Woof, Robert


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)



Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Peart, Frederick
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hannan, William
Pentland, Norman
Mr. Redhead and Mr. Mahon.

Mr. Lee: On a point of order, Sir William. You have said that the Amendment in my name, in page 4, line 10, is not to be called.
I wonder whether we could have some explanation of that. The point, as we see it, is that the House of Commons is agreeing to a loan and apparently the Ruling is that it is out of order for the House of Commons to ask for particulars of interest rates, etc., in connection with that loan.
With great respect, may I say that. although I accept your Ruling on the matter, it would appear rather peculiar that it is out of order for us to ask for details, such as interest rates, conditions of repayment, etc., on a loan which the

House of Commons is about to agree to. From that point of view, it does not appear very clear to my hon. Friends and myself why the Amendment should be ruled out of order.

The Deputy-Chairman: As the hon. Gentleman knows, this matter was very carefully considered and the conclusion come to was that the Amendment is irrelevant to Clause 1 because the Clause is very narrowly drafted. The Amendment is therefore out of order as being beyond the scope of Clause 1. Even if redrafted and submitted as a new Clause, the Amendment would be beyond the scope of the Bill because the Bill contains only the one operative Clause, and for that reason it was ruled out of order.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Willis: It would appear, Sir William, that we must now have a Report stage on this Bill in view of the fact that the Minister has accepted an Amendment. It is in order, of course, to ask the Minister to take into consideration certain things before the Report stage.
Would the Minister consider the implications of my hon. Friend's Amendment before the House undertakes the Report stage of this Bill? An important principle is involved. It may be true that, as drawn, the Amendment was out of order, but the principle that for moneys borrowed by the Coal Board a rate of interest should be fixed at a level not above that indicated seems to be one that the Minister might consider before Report.

Mr. Lee: The Minister will recall that in our earlier discussion I asked what effect the increase in Bank Rate would have on the Coal Board's borrowings. I do not intend to discuss any of the implications of the Amendment that I wanted to move, but the Coal Board is borrowing from the Treasury. We all know what the old interest rates were. Will those rates be affected by the increased Bank Rate? If the right hon. Gentleman could give us some information on that matter it would help, as the Coal Board's development plan might well be affected by the percentage of interest on the loans.

Mr. Wood: I apologise to the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Lee). I had intended to answer his question earlier but I am afraid that I forgot. I am informed that, in themselves, increases in Bank Rate do not alter the rate of interest payable by the nationalised industries; and that the rate is determined by the cost of Government borrowing over a comparable number of years. The rate of interest moves independently of Bank Rate.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) puts me in some little difficulty when he asks me to consider the matter that his hon. Friend the Member for Newton had in mind in the Amendment referred to because, as far as I understood you, Sir William, you stated that the reason for your not accepting

that Amendment was that it was beyond the scope of the Bill. Therefore, I do not think that I can give such an undertaking, as I would then be considering something that I understand to be beyond the scope of the Bill. That being so, I would not have the power to deal with it.

Mr. Lee: I am much obliged to the Minister for what he has said, but I should like to refer to his explanation that the percentage that the Coal Board will be charged will be determined by the rate at which the Government themselves borrow. Will the rate at which the Government themselves borrow be affected by the increase in Bank Rate? It may be that the Board will not be charged extra as a direct result of the increased Bank Rate, but the increased Bank Rate could mean that the Government themselves would have to borrow at higher interest rates, and pass them on to the Board.

Mr. Wood: The simple answer, as far as I can give it, is that last week's alteration in Bank Rate will not affect the rate of interest that the nationalised industries have to pay.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill, as amended, be reported to the House.

Mr. Lee: I am surprised that we are being asked to continue with the Report stage of the Bill—

The Deputy-Chairman: Order. That may happen later on, but at the moment all I am inviting the Committee to do is to allow me to report the Bill, as amended, to the House.

Mr. Lee: On a point of order, Sir William. May I, through you, ask the right hon. Gentleman what are his intentions with regard to the progress of the Bill?

The Deputy-Chairman: An opportunity will arise for that question to be asked, but I think that now that the Committee has dealt with the Bill, I should be allowed to proceed and ask


leave to report to the House that the Committee has dealt with the Bill. I am sure the hon. Member will have his opportunity at a later stage.

Mr. James Griffiths: Further to that point of order, Sir William. May I point out that the Bill that the House will have to consider on Report will not be the Bill which we have before us at present. The Bill which we now have contains figures which the Committee has changed. I put it to you, therefore, that when reporting the matter you report the Bill as amended, and the Bill, as amended, as you report it, will not be in possession of hon. Members. Clearly, the House must have before it a Bill in the amended form before it can proceed with it on Report.

The Deputy-Chairman: I appreciate the point that the right hon. Gentleman makes, but I think the opportunity of putting that point will arise in a few minutes. A Question will be put on which the right hon. Gentleman will be able to speak.

Mr. Griffiths: I am obliged, Sir William. I understand that the position is that you will report the Bill as amended. Then we shall have an opportunity of asking that the House may proceed with the Bill when the printed Bill is in conformity with the Amendments made in Committee.

The Deputy-Chairman: I understand that, provided the Committee agrees, my duty will be to report the Bill to the House; and that then whoever is occupying the Chair will put the Question, "That the Bill, as amended, be now considered." That Question will be put not to the Committee but to the House. On that occasion the right hon. Member will have an opportunity to speak.

Mr. Griffiths: Does that mean that we shall have an opportunity of debating whether it is within the rules of the House that the House should have before it a Bill in its corrected form?

The Deputy-Chairman: It will be possible to debate that point.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill reported, with an Amendment.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill, as amended, be now considered.—[Mr. Wood.]

Mr. Lee: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. An Amendment was recently accepted which changes—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Sir William Anstruther-Gray): Order. Is the hon. Member sure that he requires to rise on a point of order? It is an ordinary point of debate, I think.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I wish to raise a point of order. I have not had the advantage of perusing Erskine May to find out the precedents, and therefore I am handicapped and speak purely from memory. I am almost certain that in a situation of this kind, it has been usual in the past to defer further consideration pending reprinting of the Bill. Therefore, seeing that the Clerk is now armed with Erskine May, I should like to know— and this matter is dealt with on several pages of Erskine May—if that is not so, or if there have not been some examples when we have been in a situation of this kind and the Chief Patronage Secretary has been prepared to defer further consideration, pending the Bill being reprinted.
9.30 p.m.
My second point is this. It may be that unless we are on our guard about this matter, at some time a very serious principle could be at stake. If we do not watch how we proceed about this question, we might create a precedent, and when a serious situation arose later, it might be that it would be pd against us. Therefore, I am glad that my hon. Friends have raised this matter, in order that we can be sure what we are doing with regard to it.

Mr. J. Griffiths: May I ask you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to consider that the Amendment which we have made in the Bill is one of very great importance, because it is an Amendment not of a phrase or a word, but one which substitutes one sum of money for another? Surely, in these circumstances, when we have made a fundamental Amendment to the Bill, it ought not to be in order to consider it on Report until we have a new Bill which gives the correct sum of money. There is a difference of £25 million, and that is a matter for serious consideration.

Mr. Wood: I wonder if I could try to be helpful to the House on this point.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Does the right hon. Gentleman rise to a point of order?

Mr. Wood: This is not a point of order.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I must deal first with the points of order that have been put to me. As I understand it—

Sir Leslie Plummer: Before you do that, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, may I raise a further point of order?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: May I deal with that after I have dealt with the points of order that have already been put to me? The matter is for consideration and decision by the House itself. There is nothing in the orders to decide it one way or the other. It is for the House to make its decision.

Sir L. Plummer: The Orders of the Day and Notices of Motion for 27th January refer to—
Coal Industry Bill: Committee.
There is nothing about the Report stage. I should like to know whether it is in order to proceed with the Report stage when Report is not so specified on the Order Paper. I would ask you to take into consideration also the fact that Members must be guided in their activities by the Order Paper, and, naturally, when the Order Paper excludes mention of a Report stage, it is not right and proper that a Report stage should proceed.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think that is certainly a relevant point that will be considered by the Minister, who would now like to speak on the matter.

Mr. Wood: May I speak now, but not on the point of order? I should like to be as helpful as I can to the House. I think it would be most inconsistent, having very recently accepted an Amendment in order to give to this House added facilities for discussing the affairs of the industry, to refuse to the House the greater leisure which I understand it is craving. The right hon. Gentleman asks that we should discuss this matter on a later occasion. In assuring the House

that we would be perfectly willing to take the Report stage and Third Reading on another occasion, I would point out that the reason why the right hon. Gentleman would like us to do so is the very reason why I have already given extra facilities to the House to discuss the affairs of the coal industry. Therefore, I hope that our decision will be appreciated at least in that we are not only giving extra facilities and some time this year to discuss the affairs of the coal industry, but that we shall also do so on the deferred Report and Third Reading.

Mr. Lee: We are very grateful for what the Minister has said, but there are other reasons than the one he has adduced why we do not wish to take the Report stage now. It will not have escaped his attention that, on Report, we have facilities to move Amendments. At the moment, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) has said, we have a Bill which is not drawn in the terms which will appear on Report. At this stage, we certainly have not facilities to move any Amendments to the Bill at all.
Therefore, it is not for us so much a matter of seeking another opportunity to discuss the affairs of the coal industry but rather one of having our Parliamentary right to consider Amendments on the Report stage. That is the serious and important matter which we have in mind. It was principally for that reason that we objected to any further deliberation on the Bill tonight. We are, however, grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for what he has said, and we hope he will give us time between now and Report to consider what type of Amendments it will be necessary for us to move then.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Do I understand that the Motion, "That the Bill, as amended, be now considered", is to be withdrawn?

Mr. Wood: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Bill, as amended, to be considered Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 59]

Orders of the Day — AIR CORPORATIONS [MONEY]

Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to increase the borrowing powers of the British Overseas Airways Corporation and the British European Airways Corporation, it is expedient to authorise such increases—

(a) in the sums issued out of the Consolidated Fund under section ten of the Air Corporations Act, 1949, being sums required by the Treasury for fulfilling guarantees given under that section; and
(b) in the sums paid into the Exchequer under the said section ten, being sums received by way of repayment of any sums so issued, or by way of interest thereon,

as may be attributable to provisions of the said Act of the present Session raising the limit on money borrowed by the British Overseas Airways Corporation from one hundred and sixty million pounds to one hundred and eighty million pounds and the limit on money borrowed by the British European Airways Corporation from sixty million pounds to ninety-five million pounds.

Resolution agreed to.

Orders of the Day — AIR CORPORATIONS BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Sir GORDON TOUCHE in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(INCREASE OF BORROWING POWERS OF AIR CORPORATIONS.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

9.37 p.m.

Mr. George Chetwynd: We had a very full discussion on the Bill on Second Reading and I intend only to ask the Parliamentary Secretary several questions which arise out of events since then.
Since we had our debate, before Christmas, there have been two very important events in the world of aviation which may well affect the borrowing powers of the air Corporations and have an influence upon their finances in the future. The first was the announcement by the Minister and the companies concerned of the reorganisation of the aircraft industry into two main groups. The second, which we all applaud, was the reported £2 million profit of British European Airways in 1959, with other very fortunate results, too.
Taking, first, the proposed mergers of the aircraft companies into two large

undertakings, as both air Corporations have plans to purchase aeroplanes from both of these new groupings, can anything be said at this stage about the possible effect of the mergers on the production of the new aeroplanes? For instance, are they likely to be different in type, are they likely to be great changes as a result of new research, and so on? Is there any possibility, as a result of any greater efficiency after the mergers, of the aeroplanes coming forward before the expected date of delivery, which is, in the main, 1963? Thirdly, is there likely to be any reduction in the cost to the Corporations of these aeroplanes?
It may be that this is not the best time for the Minister to give us his views on this point, but as it seems that the Government will have to offer to the private industries concerned large sums by way of financial aid in order to get the regrouping going, by way of a carrot or bribe, we shall have something to say about it on a future occasion. As, however, the aircraft firms will be helped by financial aid, we think it right that one of the results of Government activity should be to relieve the air Corporations of much of the burden of the large cost of development which they have borne hitherto. If it is expedient to help private industry in this way, we believe there is every justification for assisting the public Corporations, too. I am hoping, therefore, that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to give us information on that point.
My second question arises from a statement made during the Second Reading debate that the borrowings covered by Clause 1 do not reflect the total expenditure of the air Corporations in their activities during the period concerned. Is it possible to have a breakdown of the financing of the activities of the Corporations? For instance, how much are they expected to raise by internal financing? Some figures were given during that debate. For instance, it was expected that B.O.A.C. would be able out of its own internal resources to meet £63 million of expenditure out of the £83 million proposed, and that B.E.A. would meet £27½ million of expenditure from its own internal finances out of the £62½ million proposed to be spent. Is it possible to


give us any reason why B.O.A.C. should be able to finance nearly three-quarters of its expenditure out of its own internal finances whereas B.E.A. can only finance something like one-half?
While on this point, could we also be told how much these figures will differ because, owing to the fall in the value of the old aircraft which can scarcely find a buyer these days, it may be that both Corporations will not be able to realise as much as they had hoped from the sale of second-hand aircraft? It may be that on this point the figures will have to be revised radically and that, of course, will affect the amount of money which the Government are proposing they shall have by way of loan.
The other point on which we need some guidance is how are these payments to be made by the Government? In the previous debate we heard something of how the coal industry was financed by Government loan. Can we take it that the same procedure applies here? Although we know something of how the payments are made by the Government, can we also be told how the repayments are made by the Corporations to the Government and whether the rate of interest paid is affected, directly or indirectly, by the recent increase in the Bank Rate? It seems to me that much of the money which the air Corporations are about to borrow at current rates of interest are to repay earlier loans made to them in the past, and it does not seem to me that this is a sensible arrangement.
In trying to assess the ability of the air Corporations to meet their liabilities in the future, can we be told, if possible on fairly reliable grounds, what are the estimates of the traffic prospects of the Corporations over the next four-year period? During the Second Reading debate we were told what their expenditure is likely to be, what their commitments are, both capital and running costs, but we were not given a firm undertaking about their prospects in respect of the increase in passengers and freight. It seems to me that there has been a fairly sharp increase in freight in the last year and I hope that this can be continued. To meet the large cost of the aircraft coming into

operation in the next few years it is obvious that the rate of increase in passengers must be fairly steep also, to make it a profitable business. If we could know how this will work out it would be helpful.
9.45 p.m.
The other point concerns future borrowing. In column 1334 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of 15th December, 1959, the Minister of Aviation appeared to say that at some time in the future he would expect the Corporations to go to the open market to raise their capital. That would be a retrograde step so far as borrowing by a public corporation is concerned. Will the Parliamentary Secretary give us some firm information about what the Government have in mind about that?
My next point is the one raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss), in column 1326 of the OFFICIAL REPORT. He asked the Minister his views about transferring some of the capital of the Corporations into equity stock so that they would not have to bear interest charges if no profits were made. The answer given on that occasion did not satisfy my right hon. Friend. Could we have some more information about that now?
We all hope that the Corporations will receive as much money as we want them to; that the aircraft will come into operation when they are scheduled to do so; and that the nationalised air Corporations will go on from strength to strength.

Mr. Charles Doughty: I do not want to delay the passing of the Bill but would like to point out that large and new aeroplanes are to be purchased with this money. We know that they can carry a large number of passengers. The question is whether, on a long run other than the North Atlantic run, they will be allowed to carry the new economy class passengers, which would mean many more passengers. The Corporations consider that they can receive as large a total income if they are allowed to carry a large number of passengers at perhaps cheaper fares. That is a question of international agreement, but it affects the Bill and whether they can repay this money at a slower or a quicker rate than they would otherwise be able to.


Will the Parliamentary Secretary say whether there will continue to be restrictions on the passenger carrying capacity of the Corporations' aircraft? If the restrictions are not removed, will he continue to insist on carrying passengers at the economy fares on cabotage routes.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aviation (Mr. Geoffrey Rippon): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd) for the observations that he has made about our discussions. It is true that on Second Reading we went very fully into the matters raised by the Bill. He has now put a number of questions to me, some of considerable scope, which I will do my best to answer.
The hon. Member referred to the effect of the mergers. I agree that this is a matter which should be left for discussion on some other occasion. For the purposes of the Bill I need go no further than to say that there is no reason to assume that it affects the plans for purchasing aircraft which I outlined on Second Reading.
The hon. Gentleman then referred to development costs. I cannot add anything to what my right hon. Friend said on 15th December in col. 1336 of the OFFICIAL REPORT. My right hon. Friend made it clear that he was aware of the comments of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries and he assured the House that the Government were giving the matter careful consideration.
Another point was the sale of aircraft. The figures for the sale of secondhand piston-engined aircraft have been taken into account. On Second Reading I referred at some length to the position. Those figures have been taken account of not only in assessing the total borrowing requirements of the Corporation, but also in assessing the position as far as internal finance is concerned.
The hon. Gentleman then asked how the money would be raised. I outlined the position in col. 1271 of the OFFICIAL REPORT. I pointed out that the Bill
does not confer upon the Corporations any absolute power to borrow up to the prescribed limits. Treasury consent is required for all individual borrowing and my right hon. Friend is responsible for advancing money under Section 42 of the Finance Act, 1956."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th December, 1959; Vol. 615. c. 1271–2.]

As for rates of interest, we considered earlier this evening how far it is proper to discuss them in relation to a Bill of this kind. I can only repeat what my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power said then, namely, that rates of interest are not directly affected by changes in the Bank Rate. I understand that the powers under Section 42 of the Finance Act, 1956, as amended, will expire next August. During the debate on the monetary system on 26th November last year, which arose out of the Radcliffe Report, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer indicated that the House would in due course have an opportunity of considering this question.
As the hon. Member said, I gave some figures concerning internal finance in the course of the Second Reading debate. The total capital expenditure of B.O.A.C. for the years 1960–61 to 1963–64 will be £83 million. The Bill increases the borrowing powers by only £20 million. The reason is that £63 million will be raised from internal finance, mostly from depreciation provisions. The comparable figures for B.E.A. are £62½ million for total capital expenditure, of which £27½ million will be raised from internal resources.
The hon. Member drew attention to an apparent discrepancy in these figures, and he was also good enough to draw attention to the very satisfactory position of B.E.A., which was revealed recently. It shows a profit of about £2 million in the calendar year 1959. The apparent discrepancy arises because of the incidence of the delivery of aircraft. Because of that incidence, B.O.A.C. will have relatively more depreciation provision within this particular four-year period. It does not follow that the B.E.A. contribution will be any less praiseworthy. Both Corporations normally depreciate in the same way, on a straight line basis over seven years, to a residual value of 25 per cent., and the proportion of depreciation they can apply in an arbitrary given period depends upon the rate of delivery of aircraft.

Mr. Chetwynd: Is the figure of 25 per cent. still being adhered to, bearing in mind the failure to sell aircraft?

Mr. Rippon: That is the normal position


The hon. Member turned to the question whether or not the Corporations will be able to finance themselves in due course. Here again, I do not think that I can be expected to add anything to what my right hon. Friend said in the course of the Second Reading debate. There are favourable trends and, having regard to the proportion of internal finance that they are already providing, it may be thought that the Corporations are not doing too badly. It would appear that there is no prospect of their being able to go to the open market so long as they have to go on placing orders for new and increasingly expensive aircraft at relatively frequent intervals. For example, the possibility of having to finance supersonic aircraft arises in the case of B.O.A.C. We must accept that the airline industry nearly everywhere in the world must continue to operate with some measure of public support.
Nor do I think that I can add very much to the very general comments made by the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) on the question whether part of the loan capital should be changed to equity capital. So long as the Government would hold all the equity the position is as broad as it is long on the question of public finance.
The final matter with which I was asked to deal concerned traffic trends. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Aviation dealt at some length with the prospects of both Corporations in the course of the Second Reading debate. At the moment the trends are reasonably favourable. In terms of passenger miles, the Corporations' traffic has increased by about 20 per cent. over the last year. As the hon. Member pointed out, freight traffic is also on the increase. We believe that it is implicit in the present policy that, in order to attract traffic, fares must be reasonably economic.
My right hon. Friend dealt with this matter in the course of his speech. He said:

In order to make economic use of this greatly increased carrying capacity, a large increase in air traffic is essential.
That was the point made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty). My right hon. Friend went on to say:
I am convinced that the only way to achieve this is by boldly cutting fares."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th December, 1959; Vol. 615. c. 1342.]
Exactly how that admirable object is to be achieved is largely a matter of international negotiation and on that, again, I cannot say very much more. It is certainly true that the additional borrowing powers will be used largely for the purchase of new aircraft specifically to meet the growing demands of traffic.
The favourable trend is indicated by the fact that in 1956, B.O.A.C., with less competitive aircraft, carried only 28 per cent. of the traffic between the United Kingdom and North America, whereas in 1959 it carried 34 per cent. of this traffic. It is hoped that it will do even better this year. During recent years B.O.A.C. policy has been one of considerable expansion. For this reason B.O.A.C. has a large number of aircraft on order; in particular, the 15 Boeing 707s and the 35 VC10s.
If B.O.A.C. or, indeed, B.E.A., expanded its capacity less rapidly than is now proposed, undoubtedly the effect would be that they would slip back in the international traffic race. It is necessary to offer frequent public services on a route so as to capture the traffic. These orders for aircraft, which is the real reason why it is necessary to have this Bill, both by B.O.A.C. and B.E.A., are based on a policy of capturing a greater share of the world air traffic.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without Amendment; read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — HIGHLANDS AND ISLANDS SHIPPING SERVICES [MONEY]

Considered in Committee [Progress, 16th December].

[Sir GORDON TOUCHE in the Chair]

Question again proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to authorise the Secretary of State to assist persons wholly or mainly concerned with the provision of sea transport services serving the Highlands and Islands, it is expedient to authorise:—

A. The payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by the Secretary of State—

(a) in making advances, or carrying out contracts for the charter of ships, to persons who provide or propose to provide, or arrange for or assist in or propose to arrange for or assist in the provision of, public transport services (including such services ancillary thereto as are necessary for the proper functioning thereof) provided in an undertaking which consists of, or includes to a substantial extent, the provision of public transport by sea, being services serving the Highlands and Islands, that is to say, the Counties of Argyll, Caithness, Inverness, Orkney, Ross and Cromarty, Sutherland and Zetland, inclusive of any burgh situated therein;
(b) in carrying out contracts for the building of ships for acquisition by him, in acquiring ships or in taking ships on charter;
(c) in maintaining, altering, modifying, converting or disposing of ships for the time being held by him.
B. The payment into the Exchequer of any receipts of the Secretary of State under the said Act of the present Session.

10.0 p.m.

Mr. Thomas Fraser: I think we have an opportunity this evening to discuss this Money Resolution. There was some discussion on it on 16th December when I fear that the Government made a rather serious mistake by neglecting to suspend the Rule to allow a full discussion of the Money Resolution. None of us objected to their failure to suspend the Rule to protect the Second Reading of the Bill if we had to discuss the Bill in relation to the principle. But we thought it a bit unfair of the Government not to suspend the Rule to take the Money Resolution. Notwithstanding what we thought about it we were very careful not to criticise the Money Resolution at all.
It will be within your recollection, Sir Gordon, that, after a number of questions had been asked, the Chair felt obliged to rule that a point of order, not a question, on the Money Resolution raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) constituted opposition to the Money Resolution, and that therefore we could not proceed further with the Money Resolution on that occasion. The right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends have now decided in the Division Lobbies that there should be more frequent investigation by the House of Commons into the amount of money—

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Member is going beyond the terms of the Resolution.

Mr. Fraser: I was about to say that I hoped the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends will take the view that it is right that we should consider a Resolution such as this because only an hour or two ago they decided that it was desirable that the House of Commons should more frequently discuss the use to which money is put by the Coal Board, money which is merely loaned by the Government, whereas under such a Resolution as this money is not necessarily loaned but in many cases given to private enterprise as a subsidy. I think, therefore, that we must claim the right to discuss the way in which money is to be given to private enterprise.
On 16th December a number of my hon. Friends asked the right hon. Gentleman to justify the use of the figure of £250,000 as the amount of money likely to be expended in the first year under some of the provisions in this Bill. That sum is not written into the Money Resolution but appears in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum. As we have seen today, what is written there does not necessarily mean anything, because today we have amended a Bill which means an alteration to or an amendment of what is written in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum. From that point of view, this Money Resolution would seem to be too widely drawn. There is no restriction on the amount of money at all. We are giving a blank cheque to the Government by accepting this Money Resolution.


In other respects the Resolution—I hope I shall not be blamed for offering some criticism of it—is far too tightly drawn. As I read it, if we accept it in its present form—I hope the right hon. Gentleman will take it back—we shall deny ourselves the opportunity of considering Amendments to the Bill, and that, I should have thought, is not the wish of hon. Members on both sides of the Committee. For example, if we pass this Resolution, we give the Secretary of State power to assist persons who are concerned with the provision of sea transport services in the Highlands and Islands. That is all right, but we say that those persons must be wholly or mainly concerned with the provision of such services.
By passing this Money Resolution in its present form we are providing that the Secretary of State must give the subsidies, and they are subsidies, to shipping companies with a monopoly of those services and that no shipping company, however efficient, whose main business is not serving the Highlands and Islands can get any assistance in the provision of the services.
I do not believe that that is the wish of hon. Members opposite. Before the Money Resolution was brought before the House, I made some observations on this point when the Bill was being considered in relation to the principle. I asked the right hon. Gentleman to consider the extension of trade which he and his right hon. Friends hope will ensue from the Outer Seven Agreement. If we have a resumption of the kind of shipping activities which we used to have between Aberdeen and the Scandinavian ports, it is surely not beyond the bounds of possibility that some of those shipping companies will be willing to extend their activities to serving the northern Islands, in particular Orkney and Shetland. If that is so, and they are highly efficient shipping companies, why on earth should we in Parliament say to the Secretary of State, "You may not give any financial assistance to such a company in providing this service. You may give financial assistance only to a company which is 'wholly or mainly' concerned with running this service to Orkney and Shetland"?
I ask the right hon. Gentleman to move a manuscript Amendment to the

Resolution or to take the Resolution back and remove the offensive words "wholly or mainly". That part of the Resolution would then be satisfactory.
While the right hon. Gentleman has been unnecessarily restrictive in the words which he has used in confining these advances to persons who are
wholly or mainly concerned with the provision of sea transport services serving the Highlands and Islands
elsewhere it seems to me that he has made the Resolution far too wide, because if we read paragraph A we see:
The payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by the Secretary of State—
(a) in making advances, or carrying out contracts for the charter of ships, to persons who provide or propose to provide, or arrange for or assist in or propose to arrange for or assist in the provision of, public transport services. …
If we pass the Resolution in this form we shall not be able to give a subsidy to the efficient shipping company which is prepared to undertake the provision of those services to the northern Islands or the Western Isles, or any part of the Highlands or Islands, unless it is almost exclusively employed in that service, and yet the right hon. Gentleman is taking power to make a payment to persons who merely propose to provide or to assist to provide or to assist in making arrangements to provide for those services. I do not know why he has made the Money Resolution so wide in this respect.
As one reads sub-paragraph (a) one again comes to offensive words which are restrictive to companies which are providing these services wholly or mainly—the words in this case being "to a substantial extent" —to the Highlands and Islands. The areas are written into the Bill by definition of what is meant by "Highlands and Islands."
Some hon. Members opposite have made some very ill-informed public criticism of the Opposition in speeches which they were able to make in the shelter of private Tory gatherings in different parts of Scotland. I hope that they and the Secretary of State now realise that this is an important matter and that they will be failing in their responsibility if they pass the Resolution in its present form without querying with the Secretary of State the reason


for his having drafted the Money Resolution in this form.
I have indicated that in some respects I think that the Money Resolution is too wide and too generous. I oppose it mainly, however, because in other respects it is far too narrowly drawn. I want to be able to move an Amendment to the Bill in Committee in order that efficient shipping companies in other parts of this country, which are willing to provide a service to the Highlands and Islands as an extension of their principal business, which is elsewhere, will be able to say to the Secretary of State, "I can do this job for a smaller subsidy than that which you are paying to an inefficient company which has a monopoly of the service at present, and I can give a more efficient service". I hope that hon. Members opposite would consider such a proposition. If we pass the Money Resolution in this form we should be unable to do so.
In the circumstances, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will either propose a manuscript Amendment this evening to the Resolution or will withdraw the Money Resolution and subsequently produce another which will allow us adequately to consider the Bill in Committee.

Mr. A. Woodburn: I want to supplement what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser). That part of the Money Resolution seems to be drawn not so much with the purpose of doing something as with the purpose of seeing that certain sections of the community do not help in doing it.
We think it desirable that there should be this service to maintain the population in the outer islands, because unless that is done and transport is provided, both by sea and by road, there will be a steady shrinkage of the population in the outposts of Scotland and many parts of our country will gradually become depopulated.
My experience in some of these parts of Scotland suggests that if these facilities are not provided the women and girls will not remain there, and once they have gone life will eventually depart. The women insist on some communication being provided with the rest of the country, and that can be provided only by effective transport. We are,

therefore, in entire agreement with the Secretary of State in taking whatever steps are necessary to see that this transport is provided.
What we cannot understand is that, while he has not yet decided what the best medium will be, he is automatically excluding, by the Money Resolution, a number of media which might prove to be much more suitable than those which are included in the Bill. I understand from the Money Resolution—and I hope that he will correct me if I am wrong— that the Transport Commission is automatically excluded from taking any part in this scheme. I am not even sure whether MacBraynes can be brought into it—and that is already a semi-Government institution. It is excluded by the Money Resolution from making a contribution to fulfilling this purpose.
10.15 p.m.
Why should not the Transport Commission undertake this? The Commission performs its functions very effectively on the Clyde, as the right hon. Gentleman knows. It operates its boats on the Clyde with the regularity and efficiency of railway trains on land. [Laughter.] I travelled in some of the worst weather the other day and the train was only about 10 minutes late on a journey of 400 miles. I did that because I could not get a plane. I travel reasonably regularly by train and I pay tribute to the regularity and safety of British Railways. In any case, no one can dispute the Commission's efficiency on the Clyde. That has been proved over many years. Since nationalisation it has certainly not deteriorated and most people agree that it has improved. Is it a prejudice against nationalisation which deprives the Commission if it is capable of doing the job of the opportunity of playing a part?
Leith — Aberdeen — Shetland and Lerwick transport has been in existence for a generation. Its shipping, presumably, is not mainly connected with transport in the Highlands. Is that regular line debarred from playing any part, if it can play a part by extending its services to the Orkneys and some of the other islands? That would be far better than hoping for all these other things mentioned in the Money Resolution to turn up. In any case, what is the purpose of mentioning all these little details?


Why not be as general in the body of the Money Resolution as the Secretary of State is in regard to other matters? He takes powers, in (c), for
maintaining, altering, modifying, converting or disposing of ships for the time being held by him.
Many other powers being taken by the right hon. Gentleman are fairly general. Why is he so particular about whom he is to make advances to, restricting it to
persons who provide or propose to provide … public transport services"?
"Persons" will probably legally cover companies, but we wish to be clear on that. In trying to carry out this purpose the right hon. Gentleman must not debar himself from using any instrument which may prove suitable, efficient and economic.
Can the right hon. Gentleman advance any argument why he should prevent himself, under the Bill, from being able to exercise his discretion? We do not suggest that he must use any particular medium. We suggest merely that he should not decide prematurely before he has investigated the facts what medium he is not to use. He has not decided what medium he will use. The Money Resolution decides definitely what medium he cannot use. That is wrong. I add my plea to that of my hon. Friend that the right hon. Gentleman should reconsider this and try to alter the Resolution in the two forms which have been suggested.

Mr. E. G. Willis: Hon. Gentlemen opposite smiled when my right hon. Friend the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) referred to a nationalised service. It is interesting to note that the Money Resolution is before the Committee precisely because private enterprise cannot do the job. Therefore, the Government now have to nationalise shipping in Scotland.
That is probably why the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) did not like Scottish Members talking about this before Christmas. He thought that it was wrong that we should draw to the attention of the people of Scotland that two months after he had carried on a vicious campaign against nationalisation he should be dumbly supporting these proposals to nationalise shipping. It is a very astonishing feat by the hon. Gentleman.
No wonder hon. Gentlemen opposite always sit silent. I should like to hear them say something about their attitude towards the Money Resolution, in which we are being asked to vote money for carrying out contracts for the building of ships for acquisition by the Secretary of State. Apparently the Secretary of State is now to become a ship-owner because of the failure of private enterprise to provide these very necessary and essential services.
There was some annoyance about what happened before Christmas, and I hope that when the right hon. Gentleman replies he will remember that he has a very long list of questions to answer which were asked on that occasion. I hope that he has the relevant HANSARD with him and the answers to some of the questions then asked. Some annoyance was expressed. We were accused of delaying this. If there has been any delay, it has been on the part of the Government because this was before them over two years ago. It is rather thick to suggest now that we have been causing delay when the Government have dilly-dallied for about two years unable to make up their minds what they want to do.
On reading the Money Resolution one is forced to the conclusion that the Government still do not know what they want to do. Do they want the British Transport Commission to undertake this? Do they want MacBraynes to undertake it? Is the existing company to undertake it? I understand not. Who is to undertake it? Under the terms of the Resolution, it seems very doubtful whether the Commission or MacBraynes will be able to undertake the work. What is the Government's intention about the position of these essential services?
There is one question which I asked before Christmas and of which I remind the right hon. Gentleman so that he can give me an answer. In the second line of the Resolution we are asked
… to authorise the Secretary of State to assist persons wholly or mainly concerned with the provision of sea transport services …
When we come to paragraph A (a), we depart from that wording and we are told that the Secretary of State can make advances to companies undertaking services which include
to a substantial extent, the provision of public transport by sea …


I am sure that
includes to a substantial extent, the provision of public transport by sea …
does not mean the same as "wholly or mainly concerned". I should have thought that 30 per cent. of a business would have been a substantial part, but it would not be the whole or the main part of the business. There seems to be a contradiction, which I ventured to point out before Christmas. Why is the wording different and what does it mean?
There is also a reference to
in making advances, or carrying out contracts for the charter of ships, to persons who provide or propose to provide"—
that seems to be fair enough—
or arrange for"—
who is a person who arranges for?—
or assist in"—
and I should like to know what that means, because it goes on:
or propose to arrange for or assist in the provision of public transport …
Who is a person who arranges for? What sort of group of persons is covered by that? What sort of person "assists in"? Surely the words
to persons who provide or propose to provide"—
cover what we want. We want services, not people who propose to arrange services which we might never see. The words simply seem to confuse the issue.
I do not know why lawyers or draftsmen use these words and I shall be very interested to hear the right hon. Gentleman's explanation and delighted to add to my legal knowledge. It always comes in handy in the Scottish Grand Committee to know what come of these things mean and I am always willing, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, to advance my legal education. That is one of the reasons why I am so assiduous in my attendances. One day, who knows, I shall be almost able to practise in Parliament House, if we go on very much longer.

Mr. William Ross: Or be able to get an answer.

Mr. Willis: Or be able to get an answer, as my hon. Friend says.
We ought to have that matter cleared up We ought to have some idea of exactly what we are voting when we vote for
carrying out contracts for the building of ships …
What has the right hon. Gentleman in mind? Does he propose to build a sort of fleet and appoint an admiral to the ferry services of the Highlands and Islands, a sort of merchant navy? Does he propose to have one, two or half-a-dozen ships? What does he envisage? We are being asked to vote money and I think we should be told how much money we are being asked to vote and at least what we are being asked to pay for. What has the right hon. Gentleman in mind in paragraph A (b)?
We have paragraph (c), which refers to
maintaining, altering, modifying, converting or disposing of ships for the time being held by him.
How many ships does the Secretary of State expect to hold? It seems to me that he has to have more than one or two, because one or two might be in repair, and we cannot stop this service because one or two ships have to be repaired. We must have a number of ships and we should be told something about them.
It is obvious from what was said during the Second Reading of the Bill, and during the course of this debate, that the sum mentioned in the Money Resolution as being a sum thought necessary for the first year, £250,000, will not cover the whole expenditure. It will not provide many ships. I should have thought that we would need at least two or three to commence with. We ought to provide that number because if one has an accident and is laid up for two weeks we cannot stop the service because of that.
The right hon. Gentleman should take the Committee into his confidence on this matter and give us rather more information than we were able to elicit from him during the Second Reading.

Mr. Ross: I am glad to have the opportunity of discussing properly the Money Resolution. The Secretary of State for Scotland will remember that prior to the Second Reading of the Bill I put a Question to the Leader of the House on business one Thursday, asking him when this Resolution would come up for discussion and, if so, whether he would allow time for debate. I got a reasonable reply to that, but hon. Members will appreciate my surprise on noting that when, eventually, it was put on the Order Paper for debate, the Standing Rule was not suspended, which meant that the House could not at that time discuss it.
Quite apart from courtesy to the House and to myself and the promise given to me, I think that it would have been an elementary precaution for the Government, anxious to get the Money Resolution, to have taken the one step that would ensure them getting it, which was to suspend the Standing Order and allow hon. Members the right to speak.

The Chairman: We cannot pursue that topic on this Money Resolution.

Mr. Ross: I am very glad that we have the Resolution before us in the present circumstances, when the Standing Order has been suspended, because you will remember, Sir Gordon, that we are dealing with the Money Resolution of a Bill, the principles of which have been accepted, but which were not heard by the House. By the historic idiosyncrasies of Scottish legislative procedure the Second Reading was taken in Scottish Grand Committee, so it is all the more important that the discussion of the Resolution should be under such comfortable conditions as we have tonight.
I am glad that the Secretary of State has seen fit to ensure that we get adequate discussion. I am sorry that hon. Members opposite have not yet found their voices. No doubt they are worn out by their oratorical exertions outside this House, but I hope that they will appreciate that tenderness to people who are not Scots and the rights of people who are not Scots to know what is happening in relation to legislation and what they are to be taxed with will make them a little more considerate in future.
May I ask the Secretary of State if I am right in understanding that we are giving him a new expenses account? I would like hon. Members to notice that we are providing a new expenses account for the Secretary of State for Scotland, and an unlimited expenses account, because there is no limiting sum of money in this Resolution. In the Coal Industry Bill, which we have had before us, there was a limited sum, and in the Money Resolution of the Post Office Bill, which we dealt with just before the House rose for the Christmas Recess, there was a very limiting figure. I see that the Postmaster-General is present and I am sure that he will agree with me.
Here we have something like a new expenses account for the Secretary of State for Scotland. He can spend what he likes. He does not need to consult Parliament. As long as he gets the consent of the Treasury he can go ahead. It is a wonderful position—and even more wonderful when we consider the specific things on which he can spend the money. If we agree to this Motion we are making public finance available for a variety of listed purposes.
10.30 p.m.
I can still remember the thrill that went through Scotland when the Prime Minister came to us and proclaimed, in the Playhouse, in Glasgow—we are used to the glamour of Hollywood romance in that place, so it was quite in keeping —that Scotland was no place for State planners and nationalisation. But what is this? What is the Secretary of State to do now? Let us see what the Motion says:
The payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by the Secretary of State—

(a) in making advances, or carrying out contracts for the charter of ships …;
(b) in carrying out contracts for the building of ships for acquisition by him, in acquiring ships or in taking ships on charter;
(c) in maintaining, altering, modifying, converting or disposing of ships for the time being held by him."

We should be careful to appreciate that this is what hon. Members opposite declared they opposed—this business of State enterprise. What I particularly want to draw attention to is that all this is being done so soon after their promises were made to the people of


Scotland. When they see such behaviour, the people do not get a very good idea of politicians, but when we decide to discuss the proposal and make it clear to the House we get this display of petulance, impatience and arrogance by Ministers of the Crown.
Will the Secretary of State tell me why it should be necessary, in both (a) and (b), to refer to carrying out contracts for the charter of ships? Again, will he tell me exactly what (a) means? Stripping (a) of all this welter of words, I reduce it to making advances to persons who provide or assist in the provision of public transport by sea and serving the Highlands and Islands, but there are so many provisions in this—together with the continued use of the word "provide" —that I feel that those who were responsible for the drafting deliberately set out to confuse us.
As I see it, it means that we are to make these advances to people who provide public transport services. There is no limitation on the people—just people who provide public transport services. It has nothing to do with whether they provide those services at sea, so long as they provide them in an undertaking. I see nothing to prevent the Transport Commission providing an undertaking in which public transport by sea to the Highlands and Islands would play a substantial part.
I would like to know whether I am right in my interpretation of these words. That is what sub-paragraph (a) says, if we strip it of the alternatives and extensions to people who
… provide, or arrange for or assist in or propose to arrange for or assist..
This is a woolly set of persons in respect of whom we give the Secretary of State power to provide money. The Secretary of State has to be satisfied that something will come out of this before he ever gets a ship manned on to the sea to go to the Highlands and Islands. We are being asked not to provide money, but to give power to the Secretary of State to get any money he likes. It is wrong to talk about £250,000 in one set of circumstances and another £250,000 in another set of circumstances. It amounts to £500,000 in a year, and that is quite a lot. If the Secretary of State

is taking power, I am entitled to ask him how much he is going to spend under sub-paragraphs (a), (b) and (c).
My next point, on sub-paragraph (a), arises from these words:
… being services serving the Highlands and Islands, that is to say, the Counties of Argyll, Caithness, Inverness, Orkney, Ross and Cromarty, Sutherland and Zetland, inclusive of any burgh situated therein …
Does this mean that the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean) is left out of this Bill? I think that much depends on whether the Minister is to get the support of Ayrshire Members as to whether an adequate service will be provided in respect of other islands apart from those islands that are specifically listed.
Does the right hon. Gentleman think it wise, before we have considered the detailed matters in Committee, to present us with a Resolution which will prevent us moving an Amendment covering other islands which the Committee might consider should be included? By passing this Resolution we shall be denied an opportunity to make any necessary Amendment. If we pass the Resolution in this form the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire, who is so active in caring for the wellbeing of his constituents, will not even be allowed to put down an Amendment, because it would be outwith the Resolution.
I hope that it will be appreciated that Money Resolutions are important matters and should be discussed. What we can discuss in Committee is determined to a considerable extent by the terms of the Resolution, and by stating as we do in sub-paragraph (a) that this will concern only the Highlands and Islands and then detailing the actual counties, the Scottish Standing Committee—if it goes to the Scottish Standing Committee; of course, it may be taken on the Floor of the House—will be prevented from proposing any other places which may be badly served by public transport. Will the Secretary of State tell me how he feels about that, and whether or not he would be better advised to take the Money Resolution back and consider extending it? He is drawing it very narrowly indeed in respect of the places to which the benefits are to accrue.


Sub-paragraph (b) reads:
in carrying out contracts for the building of ships for acquisition by him, in acquiring ships or in taking ships on charter.
This is a wonderful power of patronage we are to give to the Secretary of State for Scotland, and, in view of his own shipping interest, I am surprised that he is prepared to take it. He is to put out contracts for the building of ships.

Mr. A. C. Manuel: He should declare his interest.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John Maclay): I must interrupt the hon. Gentleman because he is, I think unintentionally, casting a reflection on my personal integrity. I have no interest of any kind whatever in any shipbuilding firm, nor have I ever had. I hope that he will be very careful in future before he makes remarks which could reflect on the integrity of a Member of the House.

Mr. Ross: It still means that an amazing power of patronage rests in the Secretary of State. He is the man who is to agree to contracts for the building of ships. Presumably, they will be built somewhere. The Scottish Office will approve the actual contract, and a firm will have the contract for building the ship. That is bound to be so.
Are we to have a new Under-Secretary of State for Scotland whose function it will be to look after our shipping interests? Who will do it? Is it to be the Joint Under-Secretary who is concerned with agriculture, the one who is concerned with education, or the one who is concerned with the Home Department? The right hon. Gentleman is taking unto himself a new power to decide that contracts will be placed for ships, not only for the building of ships but in the acquiring of ships, that is, I presume, ships which are presently owned by somebody else. He will make up his mind whose ships he will acquire, at what prices, and all the rest. Parliament is providing the money for it.
As far as I know, this is not to be the work of a nationalised undertaking. It is to be done directly by the Secretary of State. It is to be even more direct spending by the Government than by any corporation. I do not know whether the Tory Party said at the General Election that it intended to do this kind of thing.

I am not surprised that the Secretary of State is embarrassed by our reminding him of what he is actually doing. If he is not embarrassed, he makes a good show of embarrassment. It may be just petulance again.
There is, in sub-paragraph (b), the reference to taking ships on charter, and then (c) reads:
in maintaining, altering, modifying, converting or disposing of ships for the time being held by him".
As far as I know, we have not in the Scottish Office anyone at all who has any knowledge of this kind of thing. If we pass this Resolution, we shall, I suppose, have to have a new department in the Scottish Office, with more civil servants to advise the Secretary of State for Scotland about this new power he is to have. There is more in this than just the expenditure of money or the power to spend money on these things.
Will the Secretary of State tell me how much he proposed to spend under (a), under (b) and under (c)? How much does he propose to spend in aggregate? It is important to have this information. Suggestions have been made about 1960–61, but, quite obviously, it is not what is contemplated under the Bill. I do not know of any ship which we should be able to acquire for £250,000. How much does the Minister expect that any ship that he acquires, either by purchase or by building, will cost in respect of the services listed under subsection (a)?
I am glad that we have had an opportunity of discussing this Money Resolution. I hope that the Secretary of State for Scotland will reconsider the limitations of his Money Resolution and undertake to withdraw it.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Manuel: I am also pleased that we have been given an opportunity to continue the deliberations that we embarked on on 16th December last when, very peaceably and expeditiously, hon. Members on this side of the Committee who represent Scottish constituencies did their duty and examined the Money Resolution in connection with the Bill which we had previously dealt with in the Scottish Grand Committee.
The Money Resolution refers to
… persons wholly or mainly concerned …


with certain things, but sub-paragraph (a) seems to be wide open for a host of people to be brought in for providing these very necessary services.
I support the intention of the Money Resolution which is to throw a lifeline to these northern and outer islands and revive dying communications. The Secretary of State for Scotland has literally been forced to bring in this Money Resolution so that he may have power to continue services that are either dying off or are likely to die off. I do not like right hon. and hon. Members opposite not being forthcoming enough to admit that this measure of public ownership is necessary because private enterprise cannot make a profit from operating these services. Hon. Gentlemen opposite ought to admit that fact.
There is not a single right hon. or hon. Gentleman opposite who has not gone on to the platform in his constituency in Scotland and said the most appalling things about public ownership. Not one of them is now prepared to eat his words. I certainly would be if I were in that position. I would think it most unfair if I had taken up the attitude adopted by hon. Gentlemen opposite and then not been prepared to admit that I had been wrong.
There is a stonewall case to justify the stand taken by the Secretary of State for Scotland on this occasion. I hope that we will not have the hypocrisy in the backwoods of Edinburgh that we have had—

Mr. Willis: I hope that my hon. Friend is not suggesting that the honest town of Musselburgh is one of the backwoods of Edinburgh.

Mr. Manuel: I was referring to the hinterland of South Edinburgh.
I hope that the Secretary of State for Scotland will manfully withdraw his statements, either elsewhere or in this House, and not lend himself to further deception on issues of this kind.
I am anxious that the service envisaged by the Money Resolution shall be a great success, but I do not see how the Secretary of State can know what finance will be necessary according to the wording of the Resolution in subparagraph (a), which says:

in making advances, or carrying out contracts for the charter of ships, to persons who provide or propose to provide..
Does he know who will propose to provide? If he does not, how does he estimate the number of those proposing to provide? Why should the Resolution be drafted in such a way that it can mean £X million being made available to the Secretary of State?
As I understand, the right hon. Gentleman is committing himself completely— or will he say, when persons propose to provide, that he did not mean that, and that he cannot allow them to provide? Is he envisaging some competition among persons who propose to provide? If so, I can assure him that he will not get it. I may not have a full understanding of the position. It may be that this inter-communicational trade in the Northern Isles and the Outer Isles will be more lucrative once the Secretary of State builds the ships and charters them. We do not know under what conditions he will charter them. It could be a nominal charter sum.

Mr. Ross: It will be.

Mr. Manuel: Will the Secretary of State provide the crew?

Mr. Ross: He is the silent seaman.

Mr. Manuel: Who will be the captain on the deck? The Resolution is much too loosely worded, and the word "proposes," which arises so often in it, is most misleading. I would have preferred the right hon. Gentleman to operate the ships after building them, instead of chartering them.
When we previously debated this Resolution I asked him one or two questions. I do not know whether he took a note of them.

Mr. Maclay: I have a note of them.

Mr. Manuel: I said that I was most hopeful that sub-paragraph (a) would cover ferry services, especially those in the Outer Isles. Many of these services are very small undertakings, but unless they can continue there will not be much use in the right hon. Gentleman's providing money to build larger ships. The ferries at present operating some of the services in the Outer Isles need renewal. It would not involve the expenditure of large sums. Many of those operating


these ferries are crofters when they are not ferrying. I hope that they will be helped, and that the communications between the Outer Isles will become much better than they are at present.
Another point which has been mentioned is the building of ships by the Secretary of State. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what ceiling figure he envisages for the building of ships? He must have some idea, because this is not a blind leap in the dark. I am now talking about the building of ships, although the right hon. Gentleman may also charter. I take it that would be within the scope of this higgledy-piggledy Resolution. If we can be given that information, we may have a greater grasp of what the right hon. Gentleman is getting at and the sort of service we may look forward to in the Northern Islands.

Mr. William Small: I wish to know whether the word "persons" means companies, persons, or local authorities. Each county is named and the burghs therein. I suggest that the persons best able to assist are the local authorities to whom an appeal is made. I should like to know whether the local authorities undertaking to provide the services are provided for in the terms of the Resolution.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John Maclay): It may be convenient if I intervene now to deal with some of the questions which have been raised. I have been interested in the explanations given by hon. Members opposite about the events in December. They know very well indeed what happened and I am quite content to leave it to their consciences to settle it for themselves.

Mr. Manuel: On a point of order, Sir William. The Secretary of State is drawing conclusions and he is blaming everyone on this side of the Committee. I do not know whether anyone is to blame, but I wish him to exclude me from any question of conscience which he may have in mind.

11.0 p.m.

The Deputy-Chairman (Major Sir William Anstruther-Gray): Order. That appears to me to be a point of debate and not a point of order.

Mr. Maclay: If the hon. Member reads what I have said, he will find that

I did not impute any blame to anybody. I merely said that hon. Members knew what had happened and we could leave it to them to consider it. But I will try not to stray from the rules of order.
If hon. Members opposite do not understand the difference between what is happening under this Bill and State ownership as they advocate it, I shall never be able to explain it to them. But there is a profound and vast difference. It may be most convenient if I try to explain the terms of the Resolution and then deal with specific points not covered in my general explanation.
The general purpose of the Bill is to allow the Secretary of State to assist sea transport services in the Highlands and Islands. It is important to get clear just what the Bill is intended to do. Since it is an enabling Measure it is not possible to set out in detail exactly what expenditure will be incurred.
If hon. Members think carefully they will realise that this must be an enabling Bill if it is to do the job we want to do. As I shall explain later, the House will have every opportunity of considering that expenditure as the need for it arises. There is no question of giving the Secretary of State unlimited powers to do what he likes with untold money.
The first part of the Resolution makes it clear that, generally, assistance will be provided to
persons wholly or mainly concerned with the provision of sea transport services serving the Highlands and Islands.
I think that this will deal with the point made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis). "Sea transport services" is, however, given an expanded meaning by Clause 1 (2) of the Bill and covers all public transport services, and their ancillaries, provided in an undertaking that includes to
a substantial extent the provision of public transport by sea.
That explains the use of that phrase in sub-paragraph (a) of the Resolution, to which the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) drew attention this evening and previously. A sea transport service could include a ferry, which deals with a point made by the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire.
The provision also relates to the "Highlands and Islands". For this purpose the Highlands and Islands are


taken as the seven crofting counties. The reason for this was explained after discussion in the Scottish Grand Committee, and perhaps I may expand it a little as it was raised again this evening. I simply repeat what my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State said. The tradition by which the Highlands are taken as the seven crofting counties has strong reasons behind it, because of the peculiar complex of problems these counties show. This complex is made up of the wide scatter of population, their remoteness, the nature of the land and soil, the existence of crofting tenure, the difficulty of communications of all kinds, the great dependence on sea transport, the financial needs of the local authorities and their whole historic background. It may be that one or more of these characteristics can be paralleled elsewhere, but no one can maintain that the combination of these circumstances is not unique to the crofting counties. It is this unique combination of circumstances which has justified the special treatment which they have always been accorded.
I come to the details of the Resolution. The payments which it may fall to the Secretary of State to make, and which are, therefore, the immediate concern of the Money Resolution, fall into three main categories, set out in the three sub-paragraphs of paragraph A of the Resolution. Under sub-paragraph (a), advances may be made to persons who provide public transport services by sea serving the Highlands. These may be by grant or loan and they may be made in connection with the chartering of ships. Payments may also be made in respect of the necessary ancillaries of sea transport services. Piers and buildings owned by companies which provide these services form an obvious example.
Under sub-paragraph (b), payments will have to be made in respect of any ships which the Secretary of State has built or otherwise acquired in order to charter them for use in the Highlands. As the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East asked some questions about it, I will come back to sub-paragraph (a) and possibly sub-paragraph (b) later. Some hon. Members asked about the words in the second line of sub-paragraph (a).
If a Money Resolution is either too general or too detailed, it is at once criticised by hon. Members opposite. It may be the habit of the Opposition to do that, and I should not like to look back on my own record in this matter. Nevertheless, there is a dilemma for any Government who want to do the proper thing by the House. If they draw the Resolution widely they are in trouble, if they draw it narrowly they are in trouble, and if they try to set it out precisely they are criticised as we have been criticised this evening. I suggest that there is no reason for criticism, and I will explain clearly what these words mean.
The words are,
in making advances, or carrying out contracts for the charter of ships, to persons who provide or propose to provide …
It is obvious that those who "provide" may be an existing company and those who "propose to provide" may be a company formed to do it. The next words are,
or arrange for or assist in or propose to arrange for or assist in …
This could be a local authority. It might be either individuals or bodies, and it would be extremely unwise to narrow too much by the terms of the Resolution the type of person who could come under the Bill.
In answer to the very reasonable questions of the hon. Member for Hamilton and the right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn), I want to make it clear that the channels through which assistance may be given under the Bill and Resolution are not confined to existing concerns operating in the Highlands. As for new concerns, there is nothing to prevent any company operating elsewhere from setting up a subsidiary which is concerned "wholly or mainly" with the Highlands or Islands. So this is not restricted to a very narrow group of people.

Mr. Woodburn: The Money Resolution states:
… to assist persons wholly or mainly concerned with the provision of sea transport services serving the Highlands and Islands
Does that not cover all the following subparagraphs, meaning that it must be a body mainly serving the Highlands and Islands? Does not that automatically


exclude some Scottish concerns which may cover both the Highlands and the Lowlands?

Mr. Maclay: It depends what the structure of the company might be. Certainly the words the right hon. Gentleman has pd are not restrictive of the words I have been quoting, in sub-paragraph (a).

Mr. Willis: What about the British Transport Commission?

Mr. Maclay: I imagine that if the Commission formed a separate organisation to do this and it was
wholly or mainly concerned with the provision of sea transport services serving the Highlands and Islands
it would be eligible. Hon. Members must not assume that this is all nonsense. A great deal of thought is given to these matters. It is clear that one does not want to have a company whose main interests are operating in Fiji running this service as a sideline. If a company is to do this it must show an interest in setting up a coherent company operating in the Highlands and Islands.

Mr. Willis: Would that cover local authorities?

Mr. Maclay: Local authorities may come in in various forms under the Bill. I should not like to state at this moment, in answer to quick questions, precisely how they can come in. Local authorities may be the bodies which most properly could help to provide such a service.

Mr. Manuel: Is the right hon. Gentleman saying—

Mr. Maclay: I think that it would be better if I went on and finished what I have to say.
Sub-paragraph (b) is self-explanatory, and there is no need to go into it in detail. It says:
in carrying out contracts for the building of ships for acquisition by him, in acquiring ships or in taking ships on charter.
Those are obvious methods which may be necessary to secure the right type of ship at the right moment in the right place.

Mr. T. Fraser: And built in the right places.

Mr. Maclay: I agree that there are several possible right places.
Lastly, the Secretary of State must be able to maintain and possibly modify, convert or dispose of any ships that he holds for the time being. That is to cover the interval when they have left the hands of the builders but have not yet been chartered. That answers the question asked on 16th December by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross). He may have asked the same question this evening, but I have not looked at my notes.
I have been asked if I can say more precisely what amounts will be spent for various purposes, how much will be spent on building ships, how much on maintaining them, and so on. The Explanatory and Financial Memorandum gives an estimate of what is thought likely to be spent in the financial year 1960–61. Since this is an enabling Bill, estimated expenditure in the first year does not necessarily offer a reliable guide to the future. That must be clear. One cannot at this stage be certain what will happen next year.

Mr. Willis: I understand that new ships are needed on the Orkney and Shetland service. Are they to be provided within the next year or two?

Mr. Maclay: Hon. Members opposite should realise that they have not simplified the job of getting them ready this year if they are necessary this year. It is clear that I cannot be more precise about the cost of these ships, since the contracts for the new ships for Orkney will, in accordance with the normal procedure, be put out to tender and it would clearly be against the public interest to give any indication at this stage of what the Government expect to pay for the new ships. That is self-evident and deals with the question asked by a number of hon. Members. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East asked if they would be built this year. Time goes on. One cannot tell in relation to the Bill how quickly we might have to act. That is why we want to get the Bill through as soon as we reasonably can.

Mr. Willis: My question was quite fair. The right hon. Gentleman must know that there has been a report on the Orkney and Shetland steamship services suggesting that the boats should


be renewed. Is it the intention of the Government to proceed right away with their renewal?

11.15 p.m.

Mr. Maclay: The hon. Member presumably listened to the Second Reading debate and he knows that we are anxious to get on with the job. The most important and urgent part of it is that service, but by what date it can be done I cannot say. We have to get the Bill through before we can do it.
The provision for payments made in any year will be carried on the Scottish Office Vote and will be examined by Committees of the House in the same way as every Vote can be examined. The Secretary of State is also required to lay before Parliament a draft of any contract which exceeds £10,000 per annum. Finally, it is envisaged, as in the present MacBrayne contract, that the books of any company with whom a contract may be made under the Bill should be examined by representatives of my Department and by representatives of the Comptroller and Auditor General, if he so desires.
Hon. Members opposite must know enough about procedure to know that certain things hang on the various stages of a Bill. Circumstances could arise in which it would be very important to get this Bill through very quickly indeed, and I am anxious to get it as quickly as possible. Hon. Members opposite say that I have not been held up. I agree that in the present circumstances I have not been held up, but I might well have been—[Laughter.] There is no point in laughing. Do not hon. Members opposite appreciate the problems of sea-faring? Do they not realise that conditions could arise in which it would be necessary to charter a ship very quickly to fulfil essential services? That is what I have in mind in all this business.

Mr. Ross: We voted against a long Recess. The right hon. Gentleman voted for it.

Mr. Maclay: I think that I have covered all the points. I have dealt with the questions about the £250,000 and with the media, a topic raised by the right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire and by the hon. Member for Hamilton, and with whether these provisions were

confined to existing companies or went wider than that. I have dealt with the questions of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East fairly comprehensively. I cannot see a question with which I have not dealt. I hope that hon. Members opposite, having made it very clear in the last debate that they supported the Money Resolution—they went out of their way to say that time after time, and in spite of that ran into trouble—will now agree to the Resolution.

Mr. T. Fraser: I can understand the right hon. Gentleman feeling an obligation to his hon. Friends to continue to assert that the Opposition have impeded the passage of this Money Resolution, but he knows perfectly well that it was the incompetence of either himself or the Leader of the House which led to the Government failing to suspend the Standing Order on 16th December. which meant that the Resolution could not be got through before the Christmas Recess. The right hon. Gentleman invited hon. Members to pass a Resolution without being afforded an opportunity to debate it. He knows that that is perfectly true.
I am not wholly satisfied with the explanation which he has given of some of the restrictive words in the Resolution. In his defence of the words "wholly or mainly" was he defending a provision which will prevent hon. Members in Committee discussing reasonable Amendments of the Bill? Would it not have satisfied him if he had taken out those words so that he could have assisted persons concerned with the provision of sea transport services serving the Highlands and Islands?
What is important is that he should be enabled to assist persons who make it their business to provide shipping services in the Highlands and Islands. He does not need to show that the persons who get assistance are wholly or mainly concerned with that business. Why does he use these restrictive words? We are not saying that he should take power to assist shipping services everywhere in Scotland or everywhere in Britain. What we are saying at the moment—allowing that the services are to be subsidised— is that there is no reason why the Secretary of State should restrict himself to giving assistance to persons who make their whole or main business the provision of these services.


The right hon. Gentleman has spoken of the British Transport Commission, or any other large undertaking, forming a subsidiary. I should have liked to have had the advice of his legal advisers about whether the Transport Commission, having formed a subsidiary, would qualify. I should have thought that he would have been supporting the Commission. I should think that that is necessarily so, but we have not had the advantage of hearing the opinion of his learned Friends this evening. We have not been able to get an answer on that point.
In any case, why should the right hon. Gentleman make it obligatory on a shipping company running a service from, say, Leith to Aberdeen, to form a subsidiary to continue that same service to Kirkwall and Lerwick? There seems no reason why we should not have the same ships going all the way from Leith to Lerwick, calling perhaps at ports on the way. It may well be that a substantial part of the business will be between Leith and Aberdeen and not between the Highlands and Islands at all, unless they form a subsidiary for the northern part of the trip.
Why is it necessary to put this obligation upon them to form a subsidiary company to run the same vessels on that part of the journey north of Inverness? I ask that because, until they got to Inverness, they would not be in the area covered by this Resolution. They would be serving a far greater population between Leith and Inverness than they would between Inverness and Lerwick; so why must there be a subsidiary company concerned with services that are north of Inverness, or north of Dunoon on the west coast?
We are told that if we cannot understand the difference between the nationalisation which we supported and this nationalisation, the Secretary of State "gives up." But this nationalisation is nationalisation of the ships to be operated by the companies.—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Partridge) seems perplexed, but I think that he cannot know what we have been discussing this evening.
The kind of nationalisation which we have supported all along was something

which I should have thought he understood very well; but this is a quite different kind of nationalisation. This is nationalisation of ships made available to shipping companies, at charter rates which we do not know, and at rents which we do not know, and which are not supposed to make themselves pay, because, apart from getting the ships at the expense of the State, they are to be subsidised in running the services.
This kind of nationalisation of shipping services would be very different from nationalisation of the land—allowing farmers to go on farming and paying a rent for the land on which they run their business—

The Chairman: Order.

Mr. Fraser: But, Sir Gordon, I thought that the right hon. Gentleman wanted us to show that we realised the difference—

The Chairman: I cannot help what the right hon. Gentleman wanted. It is a question of keeping within the bounds of order.

Mr. Fraser: We are considering a Money Resolution that will enable the Secretary of State to build ships which he will then make available to shipping companies which, to assist them to make a profit, will also get a subsidy. I was merely saying—and I did not think that I was out of order—that that would be exactly like nationalising the land, letting it on a rental basis to the farmer, and then giving him a subsidy to enable him to make a profit on his business.
The right hon. Gentleman also said that there was no reason at all why local authorities should not qualify for assistance under sub-paragraph (a), I thought that the main purpose of that sub-paragraph was to make advances to persons who provide public transport services by sea in the Highlands and Islands. Will the Secretary of State tell us which local authority in the Highlands and Islands has the statutory authority to provide these services? Which of the local authorities in the Highlands and Islands, or anywhere else, has the power—not the duty, but the power—to provide the kind of service he intends to subsidise under this paragraph?

Mr. Willis: Some of the ferry services.

Mr. Fraser: Yes, some have particular powers to run ferry services, but they have no power to do this.
I thought that the right hon. Gentleman skated over this point rather quickly, and when he reads the words he used he may agree that he was a little misleading. He was also very misleading in his explanation of the words that several of my hon. Friends have already read out from the subparagraph in which he takes powers to make advances to persons who do not necessarily ever provide any service at all, but merely propose to provide one. He did not explain that. He merely assumed, in quickly skating over the point, that all these persons would provide a service, but they do not have to do so.
In the first category they merely have to propose to provide, and the next category are those who arrange them, or who assist in the service, or who propose to arrange the transport. There are all these different categories of people to whom the right hon. Gentleman can make advances, but they are all people who may never provide a service at all in the Highlands and Islands. They will qualify for a grant merely because they propose to provide a service. Is it the intention that they shall be given a grant before they actually provide a service—

Mr. Willis: Do not these words cover a host of middlemen of whom we have no knowledge at all—people who arrange for the provision?

Mr. Fraser: I do not know whether they are middlemen, but they are not necessarily the people who provide the service. I had assumed that the subsidies would be given to those people who actually provided the service and not to those who merely proposed to provide one but never would—

Mr. Manuel: If some acute fellow from England, or, perhaps, from one of the Edinburgh districts, went to the Highlands and acted as a contact man amongst certain individuals up there, and managed to produce some proposed service, would he qualify for assistance by the Secretary of State?

Mr. Ross: Provided he votes Tory.

Mr. Fraser: I am merely trying to get an answer to some of these questions. I want to see these services in the North of Scotland improved. I regard these shipping services to the islands off the west and north coasts of Scotland as an extension of our road and rail services. It is very important that these services should be provided. Inasmuch as the services to the northern islands are deteriorating and are likely further to deteriorate unless a subsidy is provided, of course I want a subsidy to be provided, but I want the subsidy to be given to the people who provide the services and not to the people who merely propose to provide them.

Mr. Willis: They do more than propose. They propose to arrange for the provision.

Mr. Fraser: My hon. Friend is ahead of me. I am at the beginning of the second line— "persons who … propose to provide" a service. In the next category are the people who arrange for public transport services. Who are the people who arrange? Is my hon. Friend right in thinking that these are middlemen?

Mr. Manuel: Contact men.

Mr. Fraser: Are these people who will arrange the bookings from an office in Inverness or Kirkwall or somewhere else to get a grant merely for arranging for bookings? What kind of people does the right hon. Gentleman have in mind? He had an opportunity of explaining these things and I regret to say he did not take it. Who are the people who will make arrangements for public services and who will get grants under this Resolution? Who are the people who will get grants for assisting in the provision of the services—not providing them? How does the right hon. Gentleman break up the grant between the people assisting and the people who actually provide the services? We are entitled to know. Is there to be an extra subsidy for those who propose to arrange or propose to assist?
Power is taken to subsidise the people who propose to provide services but never do so. Then there is provision for giving a subsidy to people who arrange for public transport services. Then there is provision for a subsidy to people who assist in the arrangement of


these services. Then there is provision for a subsidy to be paid to those people who merely propose to arrange a service or only propose to assist in the provision of a service. If there are any lawyers on the benches opposite, they are bound to concede that that is the only possible construction to be put upon those words. Surely the Secretary of State has a duty to Parliament to tell us what he has in mind and why he has put these words into the Resolution.
What kind of people will make those arrangements, or make those proposals to which they will never give effect? If they do give effect to those proposals, surely it would be time enough to pay a subsidy to them when they actually provide the service. Will the Secretary of State tell us now why he wants those words "wholly or mainly" in the Bill? Is it not sufficient that he should limit payment of the subsidy to the area concerned and not put in this requirement about giving a subsidy to persons whose main or whole business is in the area? Will he tell us what he really had in mind when he talked about the local authority getting advances under subparagraph (a), and give an explanation about the type of people he has in mind who are to get grants and who propose to make arrangements or assist in the provision of some of these public services?

11.30 p.m.

Mr. Maclay: I do not complain for one moment at the questions which the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) has asked, but I am a little surprised that he has asked such detailed questions about the second line. He has a good deal of experience of legislation and of the kind of drafting necessary in Money Resolutions to do the job required, and he must know that these words are used because they are necessary for the purpose.
He asked why the words should be "wholly or mainly." I did try to explain previously that it seems to me to be correct that it would not be right to have the possibility of helping in the way provided for in the Bill some company whose operations had nothing to do with the Highlands whatever. There could be argument about it, but I am certain that any company actually coming under

the Bill should be one wholly or mainly concerned with the provision of these services; and it is possible for a company to do that even though it is engaged in other operations. That, I am sure, is the right way to do it.

Mr. T. Fraser: That is not an explanation.

Mr. Maclay: What is an explanation. then? Anyone who has experience of working this kind of shipping company, I believe—

Mr. Fraser: It is not an explanation.

Mr. Maclay: Then I do not know what an explanation is. One can but give the reasons for something. I have given them. One can say that the explanation is not satisfactory, but that is another matter. The hon. Gentleman cannot say that it is not an explanation.

Mr. Fraser: If there is a shipping company running a service all the way from Leith to Lerwick, and most of the business happens to be between Leith and Inverness, but the shipping service is carried on from there to Lerwick, why on earth should there have to be a subsidiary company to run the services between Inverness and Lerwick before the company can have the subsidy?

Mr. Maclay: For no other reason than this, that it is very desirable to have a very clear accounting system which shows the operating results of the company engaged in these difficult services. and it would not be very desirable to have the subsidy merged into the operations of some very large concern It seems almost elementary. I am sorry that I did not say it earlier. I thought it was quite clear.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the words:
provide or propose to provide".
One can think of almost every conceivable condition and ask questions about it, and I shall not deal with all the possible ones because one could go on almost indefinitely. The words "propose to provide" are necessary because a company might well be set up in order to do the job but it might not yet be actually doing it. I understand that it would not be covered by "provide" if it was not providing the service at the moment.

Mr. Fraser: Why subsidise it until it provides it?

Mr. Maclay: How can the company get on with the job of preparation if those concerned do not know what is going to happen?
I will make clear here—I think this may answer the hon. Gentleman's other points—that there is a safeguard, as I have already said, in that any contract for any substantial sum is bound to come before the House in one form or another. The House will have ample opportunity to consider whether the arrangements are the most effective and suitable to deal with something which, I think, the whole Committee wants dealt with properly, and whether they meet the requirements and financial standards proper for an undertaking of this nature. The House will be able to consider, also, whether the suggested assistance is proper assistance for the Government to give. I hope that, with that explanation, the Committee will now approve the Money Resolution.

Mr. E. Fernyhough: I know that it is not usual for an Englishman to intrude upon Scottish debates, and, if the Secretary of State had given way earlier, he could have disposed of my point in a few moments.
Under the Bill, we shall be providing for the power to place contracts for

ships. The right hon. Gentleman has already said that. I know that they will be comparatively small ships and their value will not be very great. Nevertheless, there are on the Tyne some small shipyards which would be glad of contracts of this kind. All that I would like the Secretary of State to tell me is that he will, when these contracts are placed, bear in mind social and economic need. In other words, will he try to ensure that the contracts are placed where they will do the most good in providing employment where unemployment is at present high, as it is on the Tyne? He would then be following the aim behind the Local Employment Bill.
I hope that the Secretary of State will bear that in mind, and that when these contracts are placed the shipyards in need of orders will he considered.

Mr. Maclay: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will realise that it would be improper for me to give information about the tendering procedure that will be adopted.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolution to be reported.

Report to be received forthwith.

Resolution reported accordingly, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — SCHOOL BUILDING PROGRAMME, KENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Whitelaw.]

11.36 p.m.

Mr. Norman Dodds (Erith and Cray-ford): I am raising the question of the Kent school building programme in this Adjournment debate because of the unsatisfactory replies I received to Questions I put to the Minister of Education on 19th November, 1959. I said then that firm representations would be made from both sides of the House about the disgraceful way in which the Minister had wielded the axe in Kent. Tonight we are having an Adjournment debate and I believe that this will be followed by many more efforts in this House until the Minister of Education has a change of heart about the educational needs of Kent.
On 23rd November, 1959, I raised in the Adjournment debate the subject of the school dental service. I hope that tonight the Parliamentary Secretary will be less flippant than he was on that occasion and try to deal with the points that I raise.
I should like to put on record two extracts from the British Dental Journal about the debate on 23rd November. The first was:
This speech"—
that was mine—
obviously came from one who was fully informed of his facts and who was deeply concerned about the appalling conditions which face the school dentist.
The article then referred to "Ministerial irresponsibility" and said:
Mr. Thompson, replying for the Minister, was sarcastic, complacent, misleading, and anxious to absolve his Department from all responsibility, and showed no sign either that he realised the gravity and extent of dental disease amongst children, or that he had any immediate large scale plans for attempting to prevent it.
I have pd those extracts in case the Parliamentary Secretary says that I am unfair in accusing him of being flippant with a serious subject.
The purpose of raising this subject tonight is to voice the alarm and disgust felt in Kent about the ruthless action of the Minister of Education in cutting down the barest needs of the County

Education Committee for new school building and for improving existing buildings. The Kent Education Committee asked for £3,339,000 for the two years, 1960–61 and 1961–62. So far the Minister has authorised £1,783,000, with the possibility of a further £287,000 if all the projects still under consideration by the Minister are allowed for the period. So approximately £2 million may be obtained. This follows a succession of years when very much less was granted than the needs demanded.
Possibly I would not have been speaking so emphatically if it had not been for the White Paper called "Secondary Education for All—A New Drive "published by the Government in December, 1958—very conveniently before the General Election was fought. That document promised a national expenditure of £300 million in five years commencing with 1960, to end all-age schools; to ensure that all children of secondary school age would be taught in secondary schools; to improve existing secondary school buildings, and to remedy many makeshift arrangements in premises built since 1945.
The White Paper did not promise everything necessary to bring secondary schools into full compliance with the Ministry regulations about school buildings, but its tone, like its title, proclaimed that a very vigorous policy was being introduced. Provision was also proposed for building new primary schools where the necessity for them could be shown.
Kent contains about one-thirtieth of the population of England and, as a rough yardstick, the people of Kent believe that one-thirtieth of the £300 million should be available for Kent—or about £10 million for new work between 1960 and 1965. The Kent Education Committee is not suggesting that £2 million should be available every year, but it is suggesting that during the five-year period it must receive not less than £10 million, even if it is to begin to do its job. If the Parliamentary Secretary can say that whilst only £2 million has been allocated for the first two years, £7 million or £8 million will be provided for the other three years, he will allay a good deal of suspicion. Is it not surprising that there is alarm and disgust when, for the first two years, the amount will be only just over £2 million?


I first raised this question on 19th November, when the Minister of Education, in reply, said:
I know there has been some disappointment about proposals which must wait, but it was not intended nor in terms of building capacity would it have been possible to start the whole of the five-year programme in the first two years."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th November, 1959; Vol. 613, c. 1317].
I would have thought that any child in the lowest form in a school who had given an answer like that would find himself in disfavour with his master. Is that an answer of which a Minister of Education should be proud? It is seen through very easily by the people of Kent, and it has made them angry.
It is estimated that in Kent alone £17 million is required to bring secondary schools up to a reasonable state, and the cost of doing the same for the primary schools will certainly be not less than £17 million, so the £10 million would not go very far. But even if Kent's hopes of obtaining £10 million are realised by 1965, the education committee estimates that the whole task could not be completed until 1977, and at the rate of allocation that we have so far seen it estimates that the job will not be completed until 1994. The Education Act was passed in 1944, and it will therefore take fifty years to do the job, during which time five generations of schoolchildren will have passed through the schools before they become satisfactory.
We should like to know what has gone wrong with the White Paper. Was it intended purely for election purposes; or has something happened since which would indicate that there is hope for a vigorous policy? This axe which has been wielded in Kent makes complete nonsense of what was stated in the White Paper. My constituency has come out very badly indeed with not a single ray of hope, yet its needs are urgent and great. I wish to mention a few of the schools where help is needed. There is the Picardy Secondary School for Girls, the Picardy Secondary School for Boys, the Northumberland Heath Secondary School, the Slade Green Secondary School, the Crayford Secondary School and the Erith Grammar School. There is urgent need for replacements for the Crayford Mayplace County Primary School and the Erith West Street

County Primary School. I must deal with one glaring case, that of the Erith Picardy Secondary School for Girls. If the Parliamentary Secretary does not reply to that he has not taken the slightest bit of notice of my supplementary questions on 19th November.
This situation make nonsense of the Government's White Paper and shows the hypocrisy of the lip-service paid to education by the Government. I am told on reliable authority that this is the worst secondary school in Kent, which is saying something. In the Kent draft building programme, which is before the Minister, it is entered as stage one of new buildings at a cost of £135,000. To the shame of the Minister and of our educational system it does not appear in the list of approvals. It is scandalous that there should be even second thoughts about this school. It is an insult to the staff and to the pupils.
This morning I again visited the school. Had I not known it was a school I might well have believed it to be an old isolation hospital with bits and pieces spread over quite a big area. Of it might have been an old workhouse, or even an old mental hospital where the windows were so high that people could not try to escape. What worries me is that money is being spent in providing new toilets and wash-hand basins. It is a shocking place and I invite the Parliamentary Secretary to visit the school with me to see what it is like for himself. I must warn him that there will be no peace until the "right of way" has been given regarding this school. A lot will be done if there is not good news before long. The gymnasium is a shocking place. When it rains, buckets have to be provided to catch the water which comes through the roof. Anyone who calculated the amount of time lost by children going from one classroom to another would be surprised at the result. The heating system is inadequate. How can children learn if they are cold? There are draughts all over the place in the assembly hall. In summer the children are packed in like sardines. On occasions some have fainted and had to be taken out. In the winter it is a shocking place in which to put children.
I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to say why this school is not included in the schemes which have been approved and what hope there is for the future.


Will the hon. Gentleman accept my invitation to visit the school so that he may see the worst secondary school in Kent? This project has been eliminated from the programme. Indeed, no school in the Erith and Crayford constituency is mentioned.
The local newspaper wants to know what is happening to the school programme. I refer to the last issue of the Dartford, Crayford and Swanley Chronicle. The headings are,
School outbreak of Dysentery
and
K.C.C. is criticised over sanitary conditions.
The report mentions that dysentery affected 64 of 79 pupils at St. Paul's Primary School, Swanley Village, within about ten days. It says that the building is ninety-eight years old. Meals are served to the children in the passage from a trestle table which, when not in use, is propped against a wall. The children eat their meals at their desks.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Sydney Irving) asked me to mention this. I suggest that the Ministry of Education should be in the dock, not the Kent County Council, because the Ministry does not give the county council the tools with which to do the job.

Mr. Sydney Irving: This is not the only school of this kind in my constituency and it is certainly not the worst.

Mr. Dodds: I was not putting it forward as the worst. I wanted to give an example of what is appearing on the front page of our local newspaper about education.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Mr. Kenneth Thompson): Would the hon. Member please repeat the name of the school?

Mr. Dodds: It is the St. Paul's Primary School, Swanley Village.
We have been told that we have never had it so good. It may be that there are more television aerials, more cars on hire purchase and more refrigerators, but when we see what other countries are spending on education, is it not vital, if we are to survive in a competitive world and to pay for all the things that we need, that we should invest more in

education? When the Ministry brought out this circular, did it not indicate that a much more vigorous policy was to be pursued? It seems from what we have seen that this is not so and that the Ministry is paying lip-service only to it.
In speaking for the County of Kent, I am also speaking for denominational interests, because Church school projects of major programme size are included in the allocation. In addition, the minor works allocation is also held down because of the ruthless cut by the Minister. This affects primary schools most and it strikes a severe blow at many primary schools which are now far from satisfactory but which, I am informed, could be transformed at comparatively small cost.
Unless the Parliamentary Secretary gives some contrary indication tonight, the authorities believe that the future for Kent is bleak. I can promise the Minister that he will hear much more about this matter—and, I believe, from both sides of the House, because this is not a party political matter; it is a matter of vital importance to people of all political parties and those of none.
The plain fact is that Kent is being denied the means to carry out what is expected of it. As I well know, the county authorities have been particularly reluctant to make a row about this, but it is now time to have one unless there is soon to be some better news. If the White Paper, "Secondary Education for All—A New Drive" is to apply to Kent, that is what is expected by the people in the county who are interested in and concerned about the future. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will realise that I am deadly serious about this. I hope that he will appreciate that the matter is particularly serious.

11.54 p.m.

Mr. R. P. Hornby: May I make one or two points in answer to the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Dodds)? One would not appreciate from what he said that Kent is one of the more advanced educational counties in the country. In the west Kent division, in which my constituency falls, there are only ten primary classes with more than 41 pupils in a class, compared with 169 with between 30 and 40 children in


a class and 230 classes of fewer than 30 children. Nevertheless, there is worry in Kent and in other of the better placed education authorities that perhaps they are being a little penalised because they did well in the earlier years. Although they recognise that the Ministry has to look at a national picture, they would like to feel that some financial incentive might be given to them to go ahead in the way they have been doing. They feel rather that they are being held back so that others who did not do so well earlier can catch up.
During the Recess I visited some of the schools in my constituency which are not likely to get the improvements one would like to see done during the next three or four years. The chief impression with which I came away was that the pressure at the moment is on the secondary phase of education and there is danger, particularly with the Crowther Report ahead, that some of the primary school projects which are the most urgent will not get done in the foreseeable future. I hope that my hon. Friend will pay particular attention to the needs of primary education. Are we making as much use as we might of the minor works projects? I believe that there are cases when a great deal of good could he done by an extension in that field when we recognise that the amount remaining to be done, if we take the full replacement programme at its original development plan value, will take a very long time.

11.56 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Mr. Kenneth Thompson): The hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Dodds) referred in his opening remarks to exchanges which took place between us the last time he raised a subject on the Adjournment in connection with education. I think that he was unwise and discourteous to do so and not inform me of his intention before he did it.

Mr. Dodds: On a point of order. Will the Parliamentary Secretary deny that I wrote to him and sent him these details? He is well aware of them.

Mr. Thompson: It is customary, nevertheless, to let an hon. Member know if one intends to raise a matter on the Floor of the House. The hon. Gentleman appears to labour under the

delusion that it is all right for him to be as rude, hectoring and bullying as he cares to be, but that nobody must deal with him on anything but the most gentle and kid-glove terms. I do not intend to pursue that course any more than I intend to adopt his kind of policy. He pd to the House from an article which appeared in a journal following our debate. He would have done better had he pd his letter to me. It was quite the rudest document which has reached me in my whole public career. If he feels it necessary to send letters of any kind following a debate such as this, I should be grateful—I think that he would do the public service good—if he would consider their terms more carefully before he sent them.
This is an important matter. The allocation of such resources as are available to the Ministry of Education for carrying out the programme "Secondary Education for All", which met with such scorn from the hon. Gentleman, is one of the most difficult problems. We are determined to carry out the programme to the letter vigorously, to the very best of our ability, bearing in mind, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge (Mr. Hornby) reminded the House, that we have a duty which is national. We must see that this progress is maintained on a broad front over the whole country. It is true that Kent and some of the Home Counties have been extraordinarily successful in tackling their very considerable educational problems since the end of the war. No county has a better or prouder record of achievement in that period than Kent. This means that, as the influx of new population into the county has taken place, the county has had to provide what we call the "roofs over heads policy" and make provision to be able to do that. The Kent authorities have taken the challenge vigorously and have been highly successful.
Other parts of the country have a counter-balancing problem. In the North of England—I happen to come from the North of England and to know most of it very well—there are far more very bad schools providing conditions for children which we ought not and do not intend any longer to tolerate. This means that as the "roofs over heads policy" has been achieved very largely in areas such as Kent and some of the


other counties where populations have grown rapidly since the war, we can now shift our emphasis, as we must, to those areas which have other school building problems, perhaps of a different kind, but no less urgent and no less pressing.
This means that we must say to Kent and some other properly ambitious and energetic authorities that they must allow some of our resources to be channelled into those other areas. That is the reason which resulted in Kent being provided with rather more than £2 million of new building projects in the period 1960–62.
This is not the end of Kent's building programme. It is unrealistic to suggest that Kent ought to be able to work out, on a "£s-for-nobs" basis, how much it should be able to get as a proportion of the national whole, but this is not the end. Kent will be required to carry out Kent's share of the programme proposed in "Secondary Education for All", which means that the Picardy Secondary School for Girls, to which the hon. Member referred, will get its place, all being well, in the programme, if the authority brings it forward again.
We have dealt so far only with the first two of the five years and there are still 1962–63. 1963–64 and 1964–65.

Mr. Dodds: Does that mean that the Picardy Secondary School for Girls must wait until later in the five years?

Mr. Thompson: The hon. Member would be doing even himself less than justice if he thought that all projects could be tackled in the first two of a five-year programme. All authorities must make an order of priorities and accept some judgment of that order and phase them over the period which the programme is designed to cover. Not all can be done at one time. To suggest in the offensive way he did that this document, issued in 1958, long before the General Election, was issued for election purposes shows that although the hon. Member has obviously faithfully read the letter which was circulated by the county chairman, he does not take the

interpretation which his own chairman placed upon our intentions as expressed in the building programme allowed.
We intend that Kent shall receive as fair a share and as generous a share as possible. I very much hope that the Kent Education Authority will not feel that, because this different emphasis must now be applied in our judgment as to where the building programme money shall go, in larger or smaller proportion here and there, it should in any way be discouraged from getting on with the very difficult, complicated and expensive job which it has been doing.
Kent has shown itself capable, perhaps more than most other counties, of vigorously tackling work of this kind and I should like to think that it feels that we want it to keep on with it. The Ministry is faced with having to accept a total sum of money which, rightly or wrongly is considered by the Government to be a fair share of the national resources available for devotion to school building and education building projects of one kind and another. That being so, it demands that not only is the whole limited, but the parts of it year by year must be limited and the parts allocated between county authorities must be limited.

Mr. Sidney Irving: Would the hon. Gentleman say what has been approved in total for the country?

Mr. Thompson: One hundred and fifteen million pounds for 1960–61 and 1961–62. The White Paper spoke of £300 million for secondary and primary school building in that period. That programme we intend to carry out, and we very much hope we can be assured that all authorities will tackle that part of the jab which falls to them with the same enthusiasm which Kent has shown, thereby providing an assurance that the whole of the work will be carried through.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at five minutes past Twelve o'clock.